WORKERS,UNITE!Don’t let Brown andthe Tories divide us

An injury to one is an injury to all

SSolidarity&& WWOORRKKEERRSS’’ LLIIBBEERRTTYY

Volume 3No. 121

8 November2007

30p/80p

BY GERRY BATES

“BRITISH jobs for British workers”. A UK Independence Party slogan? British NationalParty? National Front? Right now it comes from Labour prime minister Gordon Brown.At the TUC conference in September, Brown talked about “British workers”, “Britishjobs” and “British living standards” (don’t mention the 2% public sector pay limit...) with suchunashamed nationalism that even a few union general secretaries felt compelled to rebuke him. Nowhe has upped the ante.

At the end of last month, after the Government admitted that it had underestimated the number ofmigrant workers in Britain by hundreds of thousands, Brown tried to fight back with a straightfor-ward appeal to xenophobic bigotry. “British jobs for British workers”, a slogan used by the BNP inthe 1980s and the NF in the 1970s, became an official part of Government policy.

Continued on page 2

British, migrant,white, black:

2 NEWS

BY MARTIN THOMAS

“YOU can expect”, writes US econ-omist Nouriel Roubini, “that theongoing credit crunch will getmuch worse in the year ahead and its falloutwill spread from the US to Europe andthroughout Asia and the globe. Trillions ofdollars of securitised assets that were slicedand diced in the long food chain of securitisa-tion are now at some risk. The first crisis offinancial globalisation and securitisation isonly at its beginning stage”.

At one end — the starting end of this crisis— two million poorer US households arelikely to lose their homes in the comingmonths because, with interest rates higher andcredit tighter, they can no longer meet thepayments on their mortgages.

At another end, the bosses of Merrill Lynchand Citigroup have lost their jobs (thoughthey, unlike the people losing their homes, gethuge pay-offs). Their companies have had to“write down” billions — admit that a lot ofthe financial paper they are holding is worthonly a fraction of what they had previouslyvalued it at. And the Government is still pour-ing billions into a big hole in Northern Rock'sfinances.

According to Roubini, and many others,that process of “writing down” has a long wayto go yet.

Karl Marx identified the core paradox here

in Capital volume 3:The credit system appears as the main lever

of over-production and over-speculation incommerce solely because the reproductionprocess, which is elastic by nature, is hereforced to its extreme limits, and is so forcedbecause a large part of the social capital isemployed by people who do not own it andwho consequently tackle things quite differ-ently than the owner, who anxiously weighsthe limitations of his private capital in so faras he handles it himself...

The self-expansion of capital based on thecontradictory nature of capitalist productionpermits an actual free development only up toa certain point, so that in fact it constitutes animmanent fetter and barrier to production,which are continually broken through by thecredit system.

Hence, the credit system accelerates thematerial development of the productive forcesand the establishment of the world-market. Itis the historical mission of the capitalistsystem of production to raise these materialfoundations of the new mode of production toa certain degree of perfection. At the sametime credit accelerates the violent eruptions ofthis contradiction — crises — and thereby theelements of disintegration of the old mode ofproduction.

The credit system... develops the incentive ofcapitalist production, enrichment throughexploitation of the labour of others, to the

purest and most colossal form of gamblingand swindling...

The recent background is a strategic choicemade by world capital in the late 1970s andearly 1980s. We explained in Solidarity 3/118:

As a reaction to the crises of the 1930s, upto the 1970s credit and banking was quiteclosely regulated in the big capitalisteconomies. That was the era of “managedcapitalism”, the era when social-democratssmugly imagined that capitalism was becom-ing more and more “socialistic” every year.

The crises of the 1970s produced the oppo-site reaction to those of the 1930s. Economieswere deregulated and privatised — initially,mostly, as a ploy to meet more intense globalcompetition and to turn the blade of thatcompetition against the working class.

Those measures “worked”, as slicker creditset-up generally does for capital, to make thesystem more flexible and agile. But they alsostore up vast instabilities.

Financial crises like those of 1987, 1991-2,1997, and 2001 made many experts demandre-regulation. But by then there were vastvested interests tied to deregulation, and vastamounts of brain and computer power beingput by high finance into getting round whatregulations did exist.

The rich do a lot more trading of bits ofpaper representing (ultimately) entitlements tofuture profits or interest payments than theyused to, and they do it more globally. The

ratio of global financial assets to annualworld output rose from 109% in 1980 to 316%in 2005 (and 405% in the USA).

The processes are more complicated andopaque — and have become still morecomplicated and opaque in recent years. Anew sort of bit of paper, called “credit deriva-tives”, has expanded from zero ten years agoto $26 trillion today.

The mortgage lenders do not just hold on toyour mortgage agreement and wait for yourrepayments. They convert a bundle of mort-gage agreements into a “financial asset” andsell it on, thus getting their cash quicker.

This is the world, as journalist Martin Wolfputs it, of the “clever intermediaries, whopersuaded [some people] to borrow what theycould not afford, and [others] to invest inwhat they did not understand”. (Solidarity3/118).

And who — and this is what matters forthem — collect fat fees from the process. As aresult, nobody knows today how much of thefinancial paper that financiers are holding isworthless, and where the worthless paper is.As a further result, the whole credit systemtends to seize up.

Pundits started talking about capital havingmiraculously developed a “Goldilocks econ-omy” just after the 1991-2 crisis. Wrong,wrong, wrong!

World credit spiral hits nemesis

BY MIKE ROWLEY, RUSKIN COLLEGE,OXFORD

THE “Oxford Union Society” — a debat-ing society which was once the stamp-ing ground of Tony Benn, Michael Footand Paul Foot, but now populated by upper-class adolescent morons whose idea of a high-profile speaker is the model Jordan — hasorganised a “free speech debate” on Monday26 November. The people whom they haveinvited to speak in favour of “freedom ofspeech” are Britain’s two best-known neo-Nazis: Nick Griffin, leader of the BritishNational Party, and David Irving, the “histo-rian” and convicted Holocaust denier.

Such a “debate” would be more of a fascistrally than an argument for genuine freedom ofspeech. Its organisers seem to see it as anentertaining freak-show that might attractthem a bit of publicity.

The BNP, which is currently trying to estab-lish a presence in colleges across the country,is of course delighted. We are not, of course,overly concerned that any of the audience willbe converted by Griffin and Irving’s absurdand hateful rhetoric; but they will use theevent to claim that students are interested inhearing their views and treat them as valid.

The Oxford Union Society still has a certainprestige associated with the name of OxfordUniversity, and the propaganda value tofascists of their being allowed to speak thereis significant.

Under normal circumstances socialists arefor the fullest freedom of speech — censor-ship is inimical to the workers’ movement.And we do not favour laws or governmentdecrees to ban even fascists. But the OxfordUnion’s invite raises other issues.

Firstly, fascists use any opportunity to speakas part of their ongoing campaign to violentlysmash the workers’ movement and all progres-sive organisations, along with freedom ofspeech itself.

Secondly, when fascists are allowed todisseminate their propaganda the level ofracist and homophobic incidents, includingviolent ones, always rises, and the fasciststhemselves often commit acts of violence.The last time fascists spoke at a university, inManchester, the Student Union EqualitiesOfficer and several visibly Muslim studentswere physically assaulted.

The BNP must not be allowed to get afoothold in our colleges.

Thankfully there is a general determinationto stop Griffin and Irving speaking here. Anorganising meeting on Monday was supportedby Oxford University Students’ Union, theuniversity Jewish and Islamic Societies, theuniversity Labour Club, Oxford and DistrictTrades Council, Unison, the T&G at theCowley works and all local Labour Partyorganisations. The meeting heard from the co-chairs of Unite Against Fascism, but the anti-fascist campaign is being worked out demo-cratically by these local organisations.

Local trade union community and student

organisations, councillors and even AndrewSmith, Labour MP for Oxford East, havecome together to campaign on the issue. Theonly notable exception is Evan Harris, LiberalDemocrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon,who has a “distinguished” record of defendingacademic racists.

He feels so strongly about the “right” ofGriffin and Irving to speak at OxfordUniversity that he has agreed to speak in the“debate” on the same side as them! This, hesays, is because he opposes censorship; butthat, to put it kindly, makes no sense.

It is not “censorship” to deny someone aninvite to speak in the Oxford University debat-ing society. The invitation of fascists andHolocaust deniers to such a platform by agaggle of irresponsible posh twits could onlybe hailed as a blow for freedom of speech bya complete idiot.

Pressure is being put on the Oxford UnionSociety to cancel the invitation. If it is notcancelled, there will be a mass demonstrationoutside the Oxford Union Society from 7pmon 26 November. Keep fascism out of univer-sities and out of our cities!

From front pageThe Queen’s Speech (6 November)

announced a new “points system” formigrants from outside the European Union.This means that people with wealth, oradvanced qualifications of the sort moreeasily gained by those from a well-off familybackground, get in. The less well-off arekept out. There will be a compulsory Englishtest. You will be tested if you come fromColombia or India, but not if you come fromFrance or Sweden. This has rightly beendubbed “lace curtain racism”. (It also comesat a time when the Government is cuttingEnglish as a Second Language provision.)

The left must condemn Brown’s appeal tobigotry. But it is also important to grasp NewLabour’s lying and hypocrisy.

As a party which serves the British capi-talist class, New Labour wants more migrantlabour in Britain — skilled and unskilled.That is why most new jobs created heresince 1997 have gone to migrant workers.

“British jobs for British workers” is dema-gogy. It would be illegal under EU law, asthe Tories and others have pointed out, andanyway impossible to implement withoutreverting to a siege economy. No seriouscapitalist demands it.

What can Brown achieve by the slogan?The denial of proper rights for asylum-seek-ers or of rights which would allow migrantworkers to assert their rights and get organ-ised. They want a steady flow of migrantlabour, but one firmly under capitalistcontrol. At the same time, they aim to appealto disillusioned white working-class voters,and win the competition with the Tories for“middle-class” right-wingers. Hence theircontortions and doublespeak on immigration.

By his blundering, Brown has opened thedoor to a Tory offensive on immigration,welfare reform and a whole range of issues.In our counter-attack, the left must be veryclear.

We must oppose economic nationalism,the points system, language tests and the restof it. We must demand open borders: therepeal of all anti-immigration and asylumlegislation. And we must fight for the labourmovement to organise all workers, British-born or migrant, legal or illegal, in resistanceto this anti-working-class government.

Rally against BNP invite!

Defend the Harmondsworth 4!Public meeting called by No Borders London. 7pm, Tuesday 13 November, at theInstitute of Race Relations, 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS (near Kings Cross)

In November 2006 detainees at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre protestedagainst conditions inside the centre and their treatment by the guards.

The centre was damaged and the detainees were moved to other detention centresand prisons.Three detainees were charged with criminal damage and a further detainee was charged

with conspiracy to cause criminal damage.The trial of the “Harmondsworth 4” is due to start in January. This public meeting is to

discuss how we can support them before, during and after the trial.E-mail: harmondsworth4@riseup.net / noborderslondon@riseup.net

Workersunite!

Nick Griffin

US Vice-President Dick Cheney isreported to have thought up a cleverscheme to launch an attack on Iran. Inthis plan, Israel will bomb an Iranian nuclearinstallation, Iran will respond by launchingmissiles at Israel, and this will serve as thepretext for an American attack.

We don’t know whether there is anysubstance to such rumours. On one level, mili-tary action against Iran sounds implausible:could anyone really be that crazy? The commis-sars of US imperialism are aggressive, for sure,but they operate within a partially rationalframework of “national” i.e. US ruling-classinterests. Why would they want to bring downthe roof on their heads, particularly after thedisaster of Iraq?

On the other hand, similar considerationsweighed against an invasion of Iraq in early 2003— but the presence of George W Bush in theWhite House, the 9/11 attacks and the easycollapse of the Taliban regime after a couple ofweeks’ bombing in 2002 had strengthened thehand of the neo-con ideologues to the point wherethey were able to hegemonise the ruling factions.

George Bush is still in office, but only foranother year. The Republican Party may welllose the next presidential election, which willmean the (in some cases demagogically anti-war) Democrats controlling the presidency, theHouse of Representatives and the Senate for thefirst time since 1994. Some neo-cons are whis-pering of the need for action “before it is toolate”. Even if they do not persuade the adminis-tration to stage a ground invasion of a countryfour times the size of Iraq, with three times thepopulation, they may be able to get some formof military action, perhaps similar to the bomb-ing campaigns against Serbia (1999) andAfghanistan.

Even limited action against could quickly

escalate into a large-scale, bloody war. AsIsraeli leftist Uri Avnery puts it:

Even “smart” bombs kill people. TheIranians’ first reaction to an American attackwould be to close the Straits of Hormuz, theentrance to the Gulf. That would choke off alarge part of the world’ s oil supply and causean unprecedented world-wide economic crisis.To open the straits (if this is at all possible), theUS army would have to capture and hold largeareas of Iranian territory. The short and easywar would turn into a long and hard war.

There can be little doubt that if attacked, Iranwill respond as it has promised: by bombardingIsrael with the rockets it is preparing for thisprecise purpose. That will not endanger Israel’s existence, but it will not be pleasant either.

...I am ready to predict with confidence:whoever pushes for war against Iran will cometo regret it. Some adventures are easy to getinto but hard to get out of.

The last one to find this out was SaddamHussein. He thought that it would be a cake-walk — after all, Khomeini had killed off mostof the officers, and especially the pilots, of theShah’ s military. He believed that one quickIraqi blow would be enough to bring about thecollapse of Iran. He had eight long years of warto regret it.

Preparing the labour movement and activiststo resist war on Iran is thus a matter of urgency.

A major roadblock here is the politics whichinforms the leadership of the Stop the WarCoalition dominated by the SWP and its erst-

while comrades in Respect. Insteading ofopposing US imperialism in the name of soli-darity with workers, women, students and otherdemocratic movements in Iran, they make pro-Islamic Republic propaganda, desperately look-ing for ways to excuse repression by theAhmedinejad regime. At the recent Stop theWar conference, they denounced their politicalcritics from Iranian exile socialist groups in themost virulent terms.

The SWP’ s effectively pro-Islamic Republicstance not only betrays Iran’ s left opposition,but means support for a state with activeregional imperialist ambitions of its own. Noeffective movement against war on Iran can bebuilt on this basis. No to war, no to the IslamicRepublic!

Editor: Cathy Nugentwww.solidarity-online.orgsolidarity@workersliberty.org

THE successful prosecution of theMetropolitan Police for negligence inthe July 2005 shooting of Jean Charlesde Menezes has dramatically highlighted theunaccountability of the police and the lack ofdemocracy in the justice system.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead ona London Underground train on 22 July 2005,the day after a foiled series of terrorist attackson London and two weeks after the 7/7 bomb-ings. Trailed by police on his trip from hishome in Tulse Hill, which included two busjourneys, de Menezes was followed down theescalator at Stockwell station and shot withminimal warning by firearms officers. TheMet’s defence was that de Menezes had beenmistaken for terrorist suspect Hussain Osman,who lived nearby.

Immediately after the killing of de Menezes,the Met were apologetic about having over-seen a “tragic accident”. They then embarkedon a character assassination of their victim —for instance falsely claiming that de Menezeshad vaulted the ticket barriers at the Tubestation and run away from police operatives.

In court, the police’s defence lawyer,Ronald Thwaites QC, embraced a panoply of

side arguments. He told jurors at the OldBailey that de Menezes’ urine contained tracesof cocaine; that he “moved in an aggressiveand threatening manner”, and “behaved suspi-ciously” in the seconds before his death; and

the QC asked rhetorically “did he fear hemight have some drugs in his jacket and wantto get them out and throw them away when hewas challenged by the police?”.

The defence used a photo-comparison of deMenezes and Hussain Osman to the jury. Thiswas characterised by the prosecution as a cyni-cal fabrication, the light levels and perspectivehaving been altered to make the two men lookmore alike.

In the end the £3.5 million investigation andtrial uncovered serious inadequacies in policeplanning and co-ordination. Unfortunately theguilty verdict does not mean that policepowers will be curbed — the fine of £175,000will be paid out of public funds. Leadingpolice officials and the government, whobacked up the pathetic lies and squirmingaway from responsibility by the Met, havewashed their hands of the affair. MetropolitanPolice commissioner Ian Blair will not evenresign.

But the de Menezes affair is not an isolatedtragedy. The failings of the police hierarchy donot lie with the aberrant individuals who leadit, but with the distribution of power and thecontrol of violence within society. It is not justMenezes. Speeding police cars kill 40 people a

year with little comeback.The police exist to back up the rule of the

capitalist class. Anti-working class, racist andanti-youth prejudice runs throughout theirhierarchy. They hold a monopoly on the legaluse of violence. Crucially, for their ownpreservation, they are largely autonomousfrom democratic control. And that is why theycan routinely operate “above the law”.

Ian Blair’s resignation might help counterthe ideological weight of the police, people’sbelief in their neutrality. But that is all. In thehere and now we need to campaign for a thor-ough-going democratisation of the justicesystem — for elected bodies to oversee theoperations of the police, with the power to“open the books”, to get behind policesecrecy and to challenge the arbitrary use ofviolence.

In the early 1980s some Labour councilsattempted to use Police Authorities (onlypartly and indirectly elected) to hold the policein check. For instance the South YorkshirePolice Authority denied the Chief Constablethe right to use council money to attack pick-ets during the 1984-85 miners’ strike.However they were stopped in their trackswhen the High Court intervened on the ChiefConstable’s side. Ultimately the PoliceAuthorities proved to be talking shops with no“teeth”.

Justice Henriques told jurors at the OldBailey that “the police are not above the law”.But unless there are directly elected bodiesthat are genuinely able to hold the police toaccount, leading police officers, in cahootswith the government, will be under little pres-sure to obey even the most basic norms ofjustice and honesty.

No to war, no to theIslamic Republic!

A democratic response to thede Menezes killing

Ian Blair, Met Police Commissioner

Iranian women protest for their rights

WHAT WE SAY 3

4 INDUSTRIAL NEWS

Strike actionhalted byexecutive

PCS members have voted 67.6%, on aturnout of 33.6%, in favour of continu-ing the campaign of industrial action,but action is being frustrated by the union’snational leadership.

This ballot results comes as senior civilservice management offer the union talks onbetter procedures for dealing with “surplusstaff”. In addition, they have indicated thatthey may agree that issues such as hours andleave be determined at a civil service-widelevel rather than locally as at present.

On 1 November, PCS’s Socialist Party-dominated National Executive decided thatin light of the talks no national strike actionshould be taken this year. Given that anumber of departments are on the verge ofissuing compulsory redundancy notices, theunion requested that during the period oftalks no notices be issued. This request wasunsurprisingly turned down. The other sidenever stops fighting the class struggle, evenif we do!

With the emphasis off national action, theExecutive is urging local Groups (the PCSindustrial sector that carry out local bargain-ing) to take action.

We have warned in the past that asking theGroups to take action, supposedly in supportof national aims, was a mistake. Things havenow got worse with the local Groups nowbeing asked to fight over what are in essencelocal issues. In other words the nationalcampaign has come to a halt.

Unison rally

ON Tuesday 6 November 1,500 coun-cil workers demonstrated outsideBirmingham town hall in protest at a‘single status’ pay deal which will affect40,000 staff.

Although purportedly intended to even outpay gaps between men and women, manywomen and many of the lowest paid workerswill be hit hardest by the new contract.Many staff will lose around £6,000 fromtheir annual pay packets, and one adminworker will see as much as £10,000 — halfof her salary — slashed.

Overall, 12 percent of council employeeswill suffer pay cuts, with many others forcedto work longer hours for the same wages.Both these staff and workers who stand togain from the deal attended the 6 Novemberprotests, holding placards with the slogan“shove the pay structure — shove flexibil-ity” — it is feared that the new pay andhours are a means of softening the councilup for privatisation”.

But the unions at the council have prom-ised a response to the ‘single status’ payoffer. Unison and Unite will be holding amass rally on 1 December and are planningto ballot their members for strike action.

Yes vote butno strike

THE public service union Unison'sballot of its members in local govern-ment for action to improve their2.475% pay offer produced a small majorityfor action, but the union's Local GovernmentExecutive, meeting on 29 October, decided

by a large majority to accept the offer andnot to call action.

According to Unison's official announce-ment: “The ballot closed last Friday, 26October, and saw 144,719 valid ballot papersreturned, with 74,631 members (or 51.6%)voting for action and 70,088 (48.4%) votingagainst. The committee... overwhelminglyvoted for a statement which read: However,in all the circumstances, including thenarrowness of the majority and the size ofthe poll, this result does not constitute thebasis for viable industrial action to break thegovernment’s pay policy.”

Even a small majority for action is surpris-ing given:

(1) The official material with the ballotpaper argued formally in favour of action,but put most of its emphasis on talking upthe size of the concessions the employershad already made and the difficulties ofaction.

(2) Unison's backdown in health(3) The CWU leaders making the postal

workers' dispute peter out.The turnout is also not as low as feared,

though many local government workers didfail to get ballot papers because of the postalstrike.

From back page

In the union leadership there was a prob-lem of illusions in the Labour government.Some people in the leadership genuinelybelieved that Gordon Brown was going tointervene and do something positive. I thinkit was a turning point in the dispute whenthey realised that Brown would not do that.

We haven’t got an old-fashioned tradi-tional right-wing leadership in the CWU. Itis a soft-left leadership — and people withsome record of leading industrial disputes.

But in this dispute they never got theirheads round the political angle. I don’tthink there was much of a strategy, all theway through. They were dealing with thingsone at a time.

Billy Hayes [the CWU general secretary]doesn’t want to confront the Labourgovernment, and with Dave Ward [CWUdeputy general secretary, and the leadingofficial on the postal side] you have anindustrial militant with no politics.

Things have changed in the Post Office.We’re used to having a bit of action, thenthe management do a deal with us. But nowit is different. It was a difficult dispute, nodoubt about that.

In fact, on flexibility, the deal means theunion agreeing to most of the imposedchanges — the changed start times, theabolition of Sunday collections, and so on.I’ve never known an agreement with somuch in it of the union agreeing to imposedchanges after they’ve been imposed.

It couldn’t have been worse if we hadrefused to agree and just let managementtry to impose those things unilaterally with-out union agreement.

The union leadership have separated offthe pensions issue from the “Pay AndModernisation” deal (though in fact theExecutive was told that it was all linked: wecouldn’t have the “Pay And Modernisation”deal without also agreeing the frameworkfor the negotiations on pensions). Thatseparation helps them, because there is a lotof anger on the pensions even from peoplewho go along with the “Pay andModernisation” deal.

The most honest account of the pensionsdeal came from Ray Ellis, the official whonegotiated it. He said: it’s not a good deal,but it’s the best we can do with the moneythe Government will make available.

The leadership emphasises that you willstill be able to retire at 60. But if you do,your pension will be reduced. It is not clearhow much.

At present, you can retire at 60 on 50%of pensionable pay. That will go down.There may be more feeling to reject a dealon pensions than on the “Pay AndModernisation”. The timetable for agreeingthe details on pensions ends in January, andthere will be a separate ballot on that then.

The 27 October meeting [to organise fora no vote] was organised not by me but byDave Chapple and Pete Firmin. I think thegroup will reconvene. It was a good meet-ing, a good start, but it’s still a weak forma-tion. The people involved are all branchactivists, but they are not seen in the unionas key branch activists.

There isn’t really a coordination of theCWU branches that are calling for a novote. Some of the branches that are goingfor a no vote would be hostile to anythingthey saw as a left group in the union.

It’s partly the long-term weakness of theleft on the postal side of the union. There isa CWU Broad Left, but it’s almost all onthe telecom side of the union. We’ve beenin a position for a while on the postal sidewhere Dave Ward has a majority on thePostal Executive, and there is a weakness inthe branches compared with five or tenyears ago.• cwurankandfile.wordpress.com

BY BRUCE ROBINSON

ON Monday 5 November psychiatricnurse and chair of the ManchesterCommunity and Mental Healthbranch of UNISON, Karen Reissmann, wassacked by the local mental health trust.Karen’s crime was to have spoken outpublicly as a trade unionist against a reor-ganisation of mental health services thatwould have led to cuts. The four charges forwhich she was found guilty were:

• When she was interviewed in December2006 and criticised the transfer of NHS workto the voluntary sector, she brought the Trustinto disrepute;

• Telling people that she was suspendedand what for;

• Protesting her innocence;• Allowing the press to print information,

some misleading, about her case. This is a direct attack on the rights of

trade unionists to campaign against job and

service cuts and against victimisations. Themental health workers are determined tofight both .

They have already held two three daystrikes in support of Karen and from 8November 150 workers in communitymental health and crisis resolution teamswill go on indefinite strike, with a furtherone day strike of all members of the branchscheduled.

The strike has the support of service users.At an 80 strong lunchtime rally inManchester Town Hall, Paul Reed of theusers’ network said he supported the strikebecause users were worried that if the reor-ganisation went through, they would lose theregular personal attention from nurses theyknew. Instead the nurses would just become“drug pushers”, appearing less often just toadminister medication.

Karen Reissmann deserves the support ofall trade unionists. Hers will be a test casefor whether we are able to oppose publiclythe new regime of market-led “reforms” in

public services being pushed by the govern-ment. It will also be a test for whetherUNISON and the rest of the labour move-ment can give effective support to that fight.

The union branch expects to be able topay very substantial hardship pay to all strik-ers and will be sending delegations of strik-ers around the country to speak to othertrade unionists and raise money. Alreadythere have been significant promises ofmoney from a number of branches. But morewill be needed.

If you want to make a donation pleasesend to “Manchester Community andMental Health branch UNISON” c/o unionoffice, Chorlton House, 70 Manchester Rd,Manchester M21 9UN.

Or if you want a speaker at your nextunion meeting please contactunison@zen.co.uk or 07972 120 451.

A Saturday demonstration is also plannedin Manchester, probably on 24 November.

• More: www.reinstate-karen.org

Defend Karen Reissmann!Postballot:vote no!

About 5,000 people demonstrated in London on 3 November in support of theNHS, on a demonstration called by the TUC, Unison and other health unions.

The unions seem to have done very little work with local NHS campaigns: thedemo was made up almost entirely of trade unionists. However, they alsomobilised very few of their own members. At a time when many small towns havehad thousands-strong demonstrations against NHS cuts, this was a shockingmissed opportunity.

Regions and branches which have seen significant disputes or anti-cutscampaigns recently produced a disproportionately high turn-out. But the officialline was that this was a “celebration” of the NHS, with the main slogan “I ♥NHS”, and no mention of cuts, privatisation or defending services.

CIVIL SERVICE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BEHIND THE NEWS 5

BY PATRICK YARKER

AT the turn of the year Labourannounced a significant change toschool-testing arrangements for studentsaged 11 and 14. Under the new schemestudents are to be “tested when ready”. But willthe scheme solve the problem of the old testsfor students and teachers — stress and demoti-vation and lessons which are designed to “teachto the test”?

In 2004 pressure from parents and teachersforced alterations to testing-arrangements forseven-year olds, granting primacy to teacher-assessment and giving teachers greater say inthe timing and content of the NationalCurriculum (NC) tests their young studentswould face. The current changes have beenimplemented on the government’s terms.

Under them, students will be “tested whenready” rather than at the end of a Key Stage. Astudent will be deemed “ready” when in theirteacher’s opinion the student’s work indicatethey have moved from their current NC level tothe next-higher level. The government expectsall students to move “up” by at least two levelsbetween the ages of 7 and 11 (Key Stage 2) orbetween 11 and 14 (Key Stage 3).

The Government claims that the new-styletests will be shorter than current SATs, but willstill allow students to show they meet thedemands of the NC level they are attempting tosecure. Ten local authorities have begun to pilotthe new system. If the pilots are judged asuccess, the new arrangements will be appliedacross English state-schools. Sooner ratherthan later old-style end-of-Key-Stage SATs willgo.

“Testing when ready” might seem anadvance on the current increasingly-discreditedsystem of end-of-Key Stage testing. But it willmean more tests more often, with the inevitableconsequence of more test-readying, more teach-ing-to-the-test. Increased use of NC testingwithin the Key Stage (alongside a host of otherdata-generating tests) will confirm the subordi-nation of teacher-assessment and strengthen thefeatures of the current assessment-systemwhich serve to reduce students and their mani-fold complexities as people and learners tonumbers, grids and graphs.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH NATIONALCURRICULUM TESTING?

THE original NC-testing regime, imple-mented at the beginning of the 1990s andfirst revised in the face of a massiveteachers’ boycott in 1993, has been erodedsignificantly over the years. “National” testingis a myth. Scotland has its own assessmentsystem, and that in Northern Ireland is differentagain. Wales diverged from the English set-upin 2004, and the Channel Islands are beginningto go their own way. NC testing is a legalrequirement only in England’s state schools; amajority of private schools have never involvedthemselves in NC testing, nor does the NationalCurriculum apply to them.

As the yearly round of school-testing hascontinued, evidence has built up to indicate thatthe current system generates undue stress andanxiety among students and works to demoti-vate the lower-attaining. Testing narrows theeducation all students receive and involvesweek after week of going over old ground inpreparation for the tests, rather than enablingteachers to engage students with new aspects ofthe curriculum.

Studies suggest that NC testing works tolower rather than raise educational standards,notwithstanding the initial surge in the propor-tion of students reaching given NC levels yearon year. New Labour made a great deal ofpolitical capital out of this “success”, claimingit vindicated their dictatorial National Literacyand Numeracy Strategies, whose intention wasspecifically to increase test-scores. But much of

this “success” appears now to be down to bettertest-preparation and increased teaching-to-the-test.

Teachers have felt compelled to replaceeducationally-beneficial activities with suchtest-readying partly because test-scores are usedby the media to compile “League Tables” ofschools. Public perception of primary schoolsis importantly affected by how their students doin the KS2 tests. “League Tables” (and henceNC testing) are seen by government as essentialin underpinning their agenda of so-called“parental choice”, a misnomer since over-whelmingly schools select students through arange of mechanisms and at best parents canexpress a preference for the school they wishtheir child to attend.

In this environment ministers welcome thepressure “League Tables” place on schools.Along with NC testing they are supposed todrive up standards. The potential for LeagueTables based on students’ test-performance toskew the education children receive and narrowthe curriculum is recognised internationally. Sopowerful is it, and so detrimental to goodschooling, that some countries (such as Ireland)outlaw the practice of compiling even “unoffi-cial” League Tables of school results.

Here the government routinely rejects anycriticism of the current system of LeagueTables, tests and centralised targets (wherebythe minimum percentage of students in eachschool who will attain at a given NC level isestablished by the Department for Children,Schools and Families, and schools are requiredto do what is necessary to meet that target.) Thesystem has delivered political gains for NewLabour across most of the last ten years.Ministers point to large percentage rises in theproportion of students attaining at given levelsin Reading or Maths test.

However, increases in student test-attainmentnow seem to have stalled, with around a fifth ofeleven-year-olds over the past two years fallingshort of the level the government wants them toreach. This can be presented in the media as afailure of government policy. This lies behindthe government’s motive for changing thecurrent system and attempting to focus atten-tion not on the yearly cohort as a whole but onthe “progress” of individual students “up” theNC levels.

THE “PERSONALISEDLEARNING” MYTH

“TESTING when ready” meshes withtalk about “personalised learning”,spun as enabling teachers to suit thecurriculum to the needs of the individualstudent. In reality this personalised learningwill use a variety of tests to push the studentinto pre-determined categories (“gifted andtalented”, “under-achieving” etc) and constructfor the student their “appropriate” trajectorythrough the system. (Government policy docu-ments actually speak of “the right trajectory”for a student, as if their future learning anddevelopment were predictable on the basis ofpast performance in tests.)

Testing in this context is claimed to bebenignly diagnostic. It will reveal student-needsand ensure that the student is on-track. Youmight think that this was the teacher’s job, andmoreover something teachers were well-placedto do since they spend the most time insustained contact with students. But govern-ment sees teaching as mere delivery, and payslip-service to notions of teacher-assessmentwhile continuing to undermine it.

Policy documents require that teacher-assess-ment be both capable of firm translation intoNC levels and directly linked to pre-statedteaching-objectives. Genuine teacher-assess-ment on the other hand is likely to be a lesshard-edged, more complex and nuancedprocess, rendering a more rounded and thor-ough, though always provisional, account ofstudent capabilities.

NC testing is designed to present students inaccordance with predetermined norms. It makesuse of the apparently “objective” nature ofnumerical data to give a version of the studentwhich cannot be authoritatively countered andis regarded as summative. Students will bepigeon-holed for their school career. It seems tome unsurprising that many students feel alien-ated from an education-system which persistsin one-sidedly telling them in no uncertainterms exactly what they are.

The re-constituted NC testing arrangementsare also likely to refine and embed the hierar-chising effects of NC testing. These work tolabel students by so-called “ability”. More testsmore often will reinforce not only the currentwidespread practice of grouping students intoso-called “ability” sets, but boost calls from theTories to return to a thorough-going “streamed”system.

The new arrangements may help underpinthe “rationing” of educational opportunities,whereby scarce resources (such as teacher-time) are directed towards students who areperceived to be around the borderline of impor-tant benchmark-levels. These students aredeemed to be “worth” more than others becausetheir performance is seen as critically affectinga school’s League Table position.

AGAINST TESTING

OPPOSITION to NC testing has beenstymied within the teaching-professionsince the failure of the NUT’s attemptedboycott in 2003. Academic criticism, however,continues.

The current Primary Review, directed byProfessor Robin Alexander, is the most wide-ranging and in-depth investigation into PrimarySchools since the ground-breaking PlowdenReport of forty years ago. More than thirtyinterim reports are to be published ahead of thefinal Report, and the first of these have begunto appear. Some of these papers re-state power-ful evidence criticising NC testing. For exam-ple, they point to the persistent wide gapbetween high and low-attaining students, aproblem known for several decades and leftunremedied by New Labour’s policy of tests,targets and League Tables. Further evidence oftest-induced stress (some of it reported by chil-dren’s charities) has been brought to light, andthe government’s version of what constitutes“standards” in schools again shown to bedamagingly narrow.

Right-wing media elements have picked upon some of these criticisms and used them topeddle a mendacious version of contemporaryprimary schooling, in which students continueto be failed by “incapable” teachers andgovernment half-heartedness. The Sun evenclaimed that because one in five children didnot secure a level 4 in their KS2 Reading SATin 2007, this means that a fifth of children areleaving Primary School unable to read!

In fact, 93% of eleven-year olds attain atLevel 3 on their NC Reading test this year,indicating that they can read at least in line withexpectations for nine-year olds. What somestudents “failed” to show in their NC test wasthe ability to read for inference and deduction.But that doesn’t mean they might not be able todo this in other contexts.

Those disseminating the materials from thePrimary Review will need to continue to makeclear that primary schools are doing well bytheir students in a range of ways, and could doeven better if government paid heed to therange of criticisms and alternatives being putforward.

The Primary Review won’t conclude foranother year, but already it is producing mate-rial which re-affirms the way New Labour,building on Tory ideas, has done harm at greatexpense to the education of school-students.Teachers continue to suffer under policy-diktatsand the drive by DCSF to micro-manage class-rooms.

The left has been slow, in my view, to gener-ate and sustain an adequately integrated andcompelling alternative discourse around thepurposes and means of (primary/secondary)education. While important campaigning hascontinued in opposition to academies and trustschools, for example, and in support ofTeaching Assistants as they struggle for decentpay and conditions, we have found it difficultto renew and then consolidate our version ofwhat education is for and how it should be putinto practice.

There is an urgent need to renew our chal-lenge to the currently-dominant discourse in(school) education. This entails re-thinking forexample notions of “ability” and “differentia-tion”, for even a commitment to “mixed-abil-ity” teaching can conceal a view of students asbasically and unchangeably either bright oraverage or “less able”.

We need also to understand the debatearound “assessment for learning” and its impli-cations for how students involve themselves intheir own learning, and intervene with our ownmore radical and emancipatory vision of demo-cratic education.

Almost twenty years on from the implemen-tation of the National Curriculum we ought alsoto be arguing for giving curriculum develop-ment back to teachers, and re-asserting the viewthat teaching is not just a set of skills andcompetencies. There are doubtless many otherareas where the left can and should be makingmore of the running.

The Primary Review continues. Its reportsand evidence are available online. TheReview’s director has invited contributions.Comrades, especially those with childrenattending primary school, should add theirviews, and encourage their children to do thesame.

• www.primaryreview.org.uk

More testing, more tracking, more tension

6 WORLD NEWS

BY DARREN BEDFORD

ISRAELI Defence Minister and ex-PrimeMinister Ehud Barak has announced thatIsrael is getting closer to a large-scaleincursion into Gaza with “every passing day”.Recent weeks have seen Gaza — which reliesin the Israeli state for half of its electricityand almost all of its fuel — have its fuelsupply cut, and a plan to cut off its electricitywas only aborted following intervention fromthe Israeli Attorney General MenachemMazouz.

This kind of collective blow, dealt out toPalestinians in Gaza as a whole, furtherexposes the careless brutality of the Israelistate. Mainstream NGOs such as HumanRights Watch and even the United Nationshave condemned the sanctions as completelyunacceptable.

Ostensibly, Israel’s renewed operations andsanctions against Gaza are aimed at stoppingthe near-daily rocket attacks from Hamasagainst Israeli military positions, but actionslike this will only serve to rally people behindthe Islamist government in the area. Israelipeace organisation Gush Shalom commentedthat “with our own hands we are uniting a

million and half people against us, in bitter-ness and hatred”.

Reports indicate that Hamas has beenrearming recently and has entrenched itself inheavily populated areas, suggesting that anyIsraeli invasion would be a messy affair thatwould necessarily involve the slaughter ofcivilians. Already, at least four Palestinianshave been killed, and more injured, by Israelirocket strikes that have missed their targets.The heavy-handed and collective blows Israelhas already dealt out to Gaza in the form ofsanctions must be seen as part of its long-term, sub-imperialist project to completelysubjugate and atomise the Palestinian people.The sanctions, which also prevent the trans-portation of certain goods in and out of Gaza,have also already led to the death of at leastone man — Nemer Mohammed SalimShuhaiber — due to being unable to accessnecessary medical treatment.

There are clear lines in this situation; apowerful capitalist state, backed by thebiggest imperialist powers on the planet, witha first-world economy and a first-world mili-tary, is engaged in the more-or-less colonialoppression of a national group. But none ofthis necessitates that socialists support theHamas government of the area or their rocket

attacks, or pretend that they represent anykind of progressive force. Hamas is aviolently reactionary organisation, the major-ity of which remains committed to a projectof destroying the Israeli-Jewish nationalentity by any means necessary.

Although socialists should support the rightof the Palestinian people to resist Israeli occu-pation, including militarily, Hamas rocketattacks on Israeli military positions cannot bedivorced from its reactionary religious funda-mentalist project. The Israeli state’s actionsdo not mean that Israeli-Jews, who also repre-sent a clear national group, are somehow anillegitimate presence in the region or that theyshould not be entitled to national rights. Theexistence of organisations like Gush Shalomand large anti-occupation and anti-wardemonstrations in the past, show that Israeliscan be mobilised against their governmentand in support the Palestinians.

Now, more than ever, socialists must lookto a “third camp” in Israel/Palestine. Thisdoes not mean some point of equidistancebetween the Israeli military and Hamas, and itis not to imply that the forces in that conflictare in some way matched or equivalent. Thethird camp in Israel/Palestine is that of work-ing-class, democratic and radical organisa-

tions on both sides that want to support thePalestinian people on the basis of democracyand independence without wanting to threatenthe national rights of Israeli-Jews. It is onlythat camp that offers fundamental hope forthe future. Only that camp can unitePalestinian and Israeli workers on a basis thatcan push the conflict beyond “solutions”based on ceasefires and geographical carve-ups between reactionary forces on both sides.That camp is currently weak; our job is tostrengthen it.

Alternative focuses for “campaigning” —consumer-focused actions like boycotts orperhaps marching through London waving“we are all Hezbollah” placards (as some left-ists did when Israel attacked Hezbollah inLebanon in 2006) — are political blind alleys,nuturing reactionary forces and potentiallybolstering to the ideology of anti-semitism.They also offer absolutely nothing in terms ofpractical support to the innocent Palestiniansat the sharp end of Israel’s belligerence.

As Ehud Barak cries crocodile tears for theconsequences of the re-invasion of Gaza thathe may sanction, the labour movement inter-nationally must redouble its efforts to posi-tively support the Palestinian people.

Yayha al Faifi fled Saudi Arabia in2002 after he was sacked from hisjob with British Aerospace fortrying to organise a workers' meeting todiscuss new contracts. He has continuedthe struggle for workers' rights in SaudiArabia ever since. Sacha Ismail spoke tohim at a Socialist Youth Network demon-stration coinciding with the state visit ofSaudi King Abdullah.

Can you tell us about your campaigning?I have continued to campaign peacefully for

workers' rights. What Saudi workers want is theright to negotiate - but the regime will not evengrant this. They have no interest whatsoever ingranting any workers' rights.

Do you have contacts inside Saudi Arabia?I maintain links with worker activists inside

the country, through internet chat rooms, forinstance. It is very difficult, but we do what wecan, mostly just distributing information.Recently the Saudi minister of labour abolishedArticle 75 of the Saudi labour code, whichprovided some job security. The powers of thisarticle have been broken up among other arti-cles, making them much weaker. It will beeasier to sack workers; employers will be ableto say, do as well tell you or starve.

Yet most Saudi workers are not even awarethis has happened. We are trying to let themknow.

Are your contacts native Saudi or migrantworkers?

Saudis. Migrant workers are in an even moredifficult situation. But I have been encouragingmy contacts to try to contact and organisemigrant workers, from places like Pakistan, thePhilippines and Africa. The situation in Saudi isvery bad: elsewhere in the Gulf, things are moreliberal and you hear of protests. In UAE,recently, there was a strike of migrant workersover immigration regulations and work condi-tions. But in Saudi Arabia there is no space atall.

What other issues do workers in SaudiArabia face?

One very important issue is healthcare. If aworker gets sick and needs a major operation,he will often be sent home and his contractterminated. If anything bigger than basic medi-cine is required, employers will not want to payit. And in Saudi Arabia you have to pay forhealthcare - despite the oil wealth. 90% ofnational income goes to 10% of the population.

How do you feel about King Abdullah'svisit to Britain?

No matter who is in power in Britain, thisspecial relationship continues. They call it a"healthy relationship", but that is the exactopposite of the truth. It is a disgrace.

What is the attitude of young people inSaudi Arabia?

Some students have tried to organisemeetings in their universities, but they facethe same problems as workers. It is verydifficult for youth to do anything. You must

remember that Saudis are generally veryignorant of their rights, or in some caseshave greedy, individualistic attitudes. But themain thing is the repression. When I lived inSwansea, I used to attend the branch meet-ings of the Socialist Party every week. Ifworkers tried to do something like that inSaudi Arabia, the emergency rooms wouldbe full of mutilated bodies! There is aregime of terror.

What support have you had from theBritish trade union movement?

I have had lots of contact. But so farpeople have not done much. I am not toocritical: people face a lot of pressure, andBritish workers have their own problems tofight. But you should understand that what ishappening in Saudi Arabia is a catastrophe.We need a broad perspective, international-ism.

What should activists in Britain do?Be more ambitious. Rail workers in Wales,

London and elsewhere have said they willtake action in support of Saudi workers. Ihope this will go ahead. British has thegreatest trade union movement in the world,and Saudi workers need its support.

For a longer interview with Yahya, seewww.workersliberty.org/node/5101

To contact Yahya e-mailworkers_cry_saudi@yahoo.co.uk

BY PABLO VELASCO

Two leaders of the Iranian bus work-ers’ union have been given longprison sentences for “acting againstnational security”, according to reportsfrom Iran.

Mansour Osanloo, the president of theSyndicate of Workers of Tehran andSuburbs Vahed Company was sentenced tofive years’ imprisonment for “propagandaagainst the system and acting againstnational security”, while Ebrahim Madadi,the vice-president was sent down for twoyears for “acting against national secu-rity”.

Parvaneh Osanloo, Mansour Osanloo’swife vowed to fight these unjust sentences.She said that doctors had recommendedsix weeks to three months of medical careand complete rest for her husband after hisemergency eye surgery. However Evinprison’s general ward environment is nothygienic and sanitised and there is noproper facility for sick prisoners.

She said that Osanloo has already beenin jail for about 13 months in total, butdidn’t know if this period was going to beconsidered. She added that judiciaryauthorities do not listen to lawyers andOsanloo’s lawyers did not have full accessto his file. Mansour Osanloo has beenfacing numerous charges and different fileshave been opened against him.

Parvaneh Osanloo added that whenOsanloo was kidnapped and taken to Evinprison, a new file with additional chargeswere opened against him. Those chargeswere withdrawn, although there might stillbe other opened files.

Protest via the LabourStart website atwww.labourstart.org

Israel threatens Gaza

NO SWEAT ANNUAL GATHERING 2007It's time again for the No Sweat annual gathering, taking place on 1-2 December. Thisyear the theme is “beating big brand exploitation”, with the following sessions:

• Red Politics or Product Red? How to Take on Exploitation (Discussion)• Taking on Water Privatisation and Child Labour in India (Slideshow and talk byRichard Whittle, author and activist)• China the Olympics and Human and Workers Rights (Discussion with TUC, AmnestyInternational & Playfair)• Christmas High Street Campaigning (Ideas and planning with No Sweat & LabourBehind the Label)• London Olympics and Workers’ Rights (UNITE construction worker activist speaks)• Migrant Workers Speak (GMB & UNITE migrant worker activists tell their story)• Iran on the Brink (Discussion, Iranian activists share their perspectives)• The Corporate Plunder of Iraq (Film and discussion with Iraqi trade unionist and antiprivatisation activist)• Black Gold (Film showing and discussion)

The event is being held Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December at the T&G building, 128Theobalds Road, nr. Holborn Tube, central London. Tickets for one day cost £6/£3 concs,or £10/£5 for the whole weekend. For more information on the agenda and to book ticketssee www.nosweat.org.uk

Osanloo and Madadi receive long

jail sentences

Workers against the Saudi regime

King Abdullah recently came to Britain ona state visit

WORLD NEWS 7

BY FAROOQ TARIQ, GENERAL SECRETARY OFTHE LABOUR PARTY PAKISTAN

ON 3 November 2007 I was in TobaTek Singh, a city around four hoursfrom Lahore, attending a preparationmeeting for our fourth national conferencedue to be held in the city on 9-11 November.

On hearing the emergency has beendeclared I decided to travel to Lahore (whereI live). This was against the background ofmy three arrests in three months and 23 daysspent in jails and police stations. The LabourParty Pakistan has become a target for themilitary regime because of our active partici-pation in the lawyers’ movement. Severalcomrades have been arrested.

As I arrived in Lahore I heard that policehad raided my house and were looking forme. My partner Shahnaz Iqbal told themthat I was not home and would not be athome because I know that I would bearrested.

I was given a few mobile phone SIMs andwas advised not to use my regular mobilenumber.

All of the private television channels wereoff the air. There was only official television,broadcasting the official propaganda.

After midnight, General Musharraf cameon the official television.. with his usualdemagogy about the national interest and“Pakistan first”. He told us that he hasremoved the chief justice of the SupremeCourt of Pakistan because his decisions have

promoted terrorism and suicidal attacks inPakistan… [The truth is] he had imposed theemergency rules to prolong his power periodand to avoid the Supreme Court decision thatmight be against him.

Next day ... I put on my regular mobiletelephone, forgetting that I am underground.There was immediately a call from a friendand I replied to him. This was a mistake.

I was told by my friend to change mylocation immediately. I went to a park threekilometres away from where I was stayingand spoke to some comrades on my newtelephone and discussed the political situa-tion. I called my family. My daughter andson asked me not to come home and told methat they are okay.

A meeting of the Joint Action Committeefor People’s Rights was called at the officeof the Human Rights Commission ofPakistan to discuss a strategy to oppose thedictatorial measures. The chairperson of theCommission Asma Jahanghir was alreadydetained at her house. Her office called meto tell the comrades to come for the meeting.I told them I would not be there and that ifthe police saw me they would immediatelyarrest me.

Khalid Malik, director of the LabourEducation Foundation, and Azra Shad, chair-person of the Women Workers Help Line,were among around 70 people who went tothis meeting. Comrades who were a littlelate for the meeting saw police everywherearound the HRCP office. They contacted

people inside on the phone to tell them to beready for the arrests. So the laziness of threecomrades saved them from being arrested!

Police went inside and broke the doors.They asked women to leave and men to stayto be arrested. They were all bundled awayto the nearest police station.

This incident shows the intensity of thepolice brutality and the [goal of the] militaryregime to silence any opposition voice. Itwas the first time since the establishment ofthe Human Rights Commission of Pakistanoffice in 1986 that police have entered thebuilding. It was considered to be a safe placeand that police would not dare to enter.

In the evening I made another mistake onmy regular telephone. Bad habits die hard. Ispoke to a journalist from a private TV chan-nel about the arrests. I immediately realisedmy mistake and left where I was to stay atanother one for the evening. As I arrived atthe new place I received a call around11.30pm that police had entered my homeand looked for me everywhere. The nextmorning my partner told me the police hadcome with some intelligence officers in plainclothes. They ordered her to open the door.When police entered my home, only mydaughter (13), son (7) and my partnerShahnaz were at home. The police openedevery room, cupboards, bathroom, and wentto the rooftop. They were desperate to arrestme.

I was upset after hearing the news but didnot call home for security reasons. It was

hard, but I had to be patient, I was told bymy friends.

Today is Monday. We have decided tobring out the weekly paper Workers’ Struggleon time and today was the last day of thepaper production. We did not work at theusual office of the paper. We brought theequipment, computer and printer and so on,to a new place to work together.

We five together worked on the paper. Iwrote the main article... I used a new tele-phone line to hear about the arrests oflawyers all over the country. More than 700have been arrested. Police entered theLahore High Court building for the first timein history and arrested the lawyers afterseverely beating them up. I was writingabout a new history of police atrocitiesunder a military dictatorship.

We decided to fight back against the mili-tary regime and to organise the movement. Itwas agreed that I will not come out in theopen but will be active in organising themovement until my arrest at my post. Wewill not accept the dictatorial measures, wewill organise demonstrations and will askcomrades to be ready for more arrests.

Here I am sitting in an internet cafe at6pm to write this. I had to travel over 20kilometers to reach my place for thisevening.More information emaillabourpartypk@yahoo.com, or visitwww.laborpakistan.org orwww.jeddojuhd.com

BY ED MALTBY

FRENCH students are uniting with work-ers to organise a mass opposition toPresident Sarkozy’s offensive on health,pensions, asylum seekers, the right to strikeand education (see Solidarity 3-119),

Since the end of October mass meetingshave been held at more than twenty universitiesall over the France. Almost all of these meet-ings have voted for a programme of directaction in support of workers on strike againstthe government’s reforms. Students are callingfor the repeal of recent laws on education fund-ing and foreign students.

Numerous universities have been occupied,including Paris-Tolbiac and Rouen, withadministrative offices blockaded at Dijon.

The movement is calling for the repeal of theLaw on the Autonomy of Universities (LRU),which is the government’s agenda of privatisa-tion-by-stealth in Higher Education. The LRUconcentrates power in the hands of universitydirectors, encouraging them to operate likeCEOs, and increases their power to bypass theelected university council on issues like hiringand firing staff, opening and closing depart-ments and laboratories, and deciding onsources of funding. Democratic bodies in

universities are reduced in size and underminedby the law.

At the same time, the government is encour-aging universities to compete for funding fromprivate enterprises.

Finally, the government has increased theemphasis on universities being first and fore-most providers of skilled workers for industry.

The law was voted on and passed veryquickly over the summer holidays, to try toavoid student mobilisation against it.Unfortunately the largest student union, UNEFhas essentially agreed to everything in the law.The bureaucrats in charge of UNEF are terri-fied of another mass struggle like the CPEmovement breaking out, and are determined tonip grassroots student activity in the bud.

The organising work has therefore been leftto radical activist networks, smaller unions andrevolutionary groups like the LCR. Even with-out involvement from UNEF, the nationalstudent co-ordination in Toulouse on the 30October attracted delegations from 21 universi-ties. Even at this early stage in the movementordinary students are attending mass meetingsand voting for radical action in their hundreds.

But the government is on the offensive too.Many universities have been pre-emptivelyshut by ministers, and student activists are

subject to more arrests and more aggressivepolice intervention than was seen during theCPE.

The movement which is currently underwayin universities is unlikely to be an isolated

student affair. The need for student-workerunity is at the forefront of the minds ofstudents, who are turning out in droves tosupport picket lines and union demonstrations,in particular the last big one on the 18October. “This is not just us revolutionarysocialists being optimistic”, a young memberof the LCR told me, “in the general assemblies,students with no activist background are talk-ing about the need to support the strikes. Afterthe CPE, people understand how important itis.”

It looks like student general assembliesdirecting actions, of university occupations andblockades of the transport system, could nowbe used to support a major strike wave which isbrewing for the coming month. For the firsttime, a “reconductible” strike (where work-places hold general assemblies every eveningto vote on whether to continue the strike thefollowing day) has been declared by the unionleaders in transport on 13 November, and inseveral other industries, including teaching andlocal government unions for 20 November.Labour movement activists are talking about2007 being a replay of the events of the 1995strikes and the 2006 student movement all inone go, with students and railway workersleading the way!

France: students occupy, strikes from 13 November

Life underground for a Pakistani socialist

Railworkers were among those who participated in the 18 October strikes across France

Wednesday 7 November

IHAVE just returned from two successiveoccupations of Parisian universities. OnWednesday night a general assembly washeld in a large lecture theatre in the Sorbonne(Paris IV). Around 300 students were in atten-dance, in a huge wood-panelled room with agrand piano in the corner, and remained insession for around three hours. As students filedinto the university from the street, they were allchecked by security guards. There had beensecurity and police posted on the door for somedays, and the authorities had been remindingleading activists from the CPE movement, viaemail, that they were being watched.

The meeting (amid great noise throughout,frequently interrupted by applause, cheers andraucous heckling) heard reports of action fromother campuses in Paris were heard: Paris VIIIhad voted to blockade on Thursday, Paris I(Tolbiac, the historically most radical faculty)had been closed by the administration to prevent

students from organising, and attempts werebeing made to reopen it… These announcementswere met with great cheers. Vague news from theprovinces was also read out, but reports werestill confused and uncertain.

Wider issues were discussed as well — howstudents had to support striking workers. As onestudent from Tolbiac put it “we must warm upthe room for the railway workers!”

While anarchists spoke about the need tocreate communal kitchens in the university anddevise impregnable barricades, to allow for alonger occupation, socialists stressed the need todescend into the streets to march and picketalongside workers.

Towards the end of the meeting, a bloc ofabout thirty students opposed to the assemblyarrived to take part in the vote at the end. Theymade no arguments or interventions from thefloor…

The vote was taken: 250 voted for, and 70against a strike.

Many students were taken aback at the speed

of the proceedings — that after only one largegeneral assembly the faculty was to be occupied.Many commented that it was too soon. I raisedthis charge with one of the leading unionists,who agreed that it was a small, rather sillyaction, but that a strike had after all been votedfor, that this blockade would help to make prop-aganda for building another, larger generalassembly later, and that the authorities wouldn’thave the will or the resources to take seriousaction against the participants.

The crowd reassembled for a smaller meetingwhere a plan was arrived at — to create a mediabuzz by provoking the administration to closethe Sorbonne for a short period on Wednesday,before leaving en masse to support the expectedoccupation of Tolbiac, which was judged to beimportant for student morale nationally. To thisend, banners were hung out of windows, andseveral tons of classroom furniture was piled upin the central courtyard. The strikers wereejected by the CRS at about 11 o’clock with noarrests...

BY SOFIE BUCKLAND (NUS NATIONALEXECUTIVE, PC)

ON Sunday 4 November, a meeting washeld at Birkbeck College in London tolaunch a united campaign against theattacks on democracy included in the“Governance Review” of the National Union ofStudents. Attended by 50 student activists andstudent union officers — including members ofEducation Not for Sale, Workers’ Liberty, theSWP, Socialist Students, the Young Greens, anda variety of independents — the meetingdiscussed the nature of the attacks within thecontext of years of NUS inaction and misman-agement, began to plan a campaign againstthem, and elected a steering committee to takethings forward.

ENS members proposed that our statement,advocating a vision for the student movementand positive proposals as well as defensiveslogans, be adopted by the campaign. With theSWP having mobilised a fairly large number oftheir members for the meeting, that was voteddown 14-24 with eight abstentions. The SWP issticking to the idea that positive proposals willendanger the fight to defeat the GovernanceReview — missing two key points.

Firstly, the campaign as a whole adopting aparticular platform does not mean that peoplehave to agree with every dot and comma towork with it — as anyone who has ever beeninvolved in any sort of activism knows. Even ifthey don’t put their name to a particular state-ment, no one opposed to the GovernanceReview proposals is going to vote in favour ofthem on the grounds that they disagree withsome aspects of the campaign against.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, it is clearthat we cannot run an effective campaign unlesswe tell the truth about NUS’s current short-comings. For the leadership to be able to pres-ent opponents of the Governance Review asessentially conservative would be fatal. Inparticular, we will not mobilise any significantnumber of student activists if we fail to makeclear that we are not defending the status quo.

The meeting adopted the slogans “DefendNUS democracy”, “Defeat the GovernanceReview” and “For a democratic, campaigningNUS”. While we came up with the last of theseand thus welcome its adoption, we would makethe point that it needs to be filled with somedefinite content — since, after all, no one inNUS would disagree on paper with the need forit to be democratic and campaigning.

We will continue to work within thecampaign, arguing against a purely defensivestance, for a positive vision and for concretedemands to win a democratic, campaigning,political NUS. ENS supporters Sofie Buckland(NUS NEC) and Daniel Randall (NUS NECmember 2005-2006) were elected to the steer-ing committee, as were a number of others whohave worked closely with ENS. Steeringcommittee meetings will be open to all activiststo attend and speak at, and we hope to be ableto publicise the first one soon.

As the meeting heard from Dan Swain ofNUS Steering Committee (in effect NUS’sconference arrangements committee), it iscertain that an Extraordinary Conference topush through the cuts will now go ahead, sincethe right-wing majority on the NUS Executivewill have little difficulty getting the requisite 25member unions to call one, although so far onlyseven requests have been formally made. TheConference will take place on 29 November or4, 5 or 6 December. The immediate focus forstudent activists is now to pass motions in theirunions mandating delegates to vote against thereview, and to get themselves delegated if theycan. We will demand that unions that have notyet had their elections hold a cross-campusballot to elect delegates. We need just over athird of the vote to reject the constitutionalchanges.

For activists at universities where gettingdelegated or passing motions will be difficult(because of right-wing or inactive students’unions, for example), resisting the review willinvolve educating people on your campus aboutwhat it means for NUS and organising from the

ground-up to exert pressure — for instance byholding open meetings, collecting signatures onthe ENS-launched statement, circulating infor-mation among campaigning societies, writingarticles for student newspapers and websites,and holding demonstrations and actions tomobilise activists and put pressure on yourunion executive.

Although the focus of the NUS democracycampaign is on persuading delegates andstudent union officers of the immediate need tovote against the proposals, a real campaign todefend and extend NUS’s democratic structuresmust draw in ordinary students not alreadyinvolved in their (often moribund) students’unions. We shouldn’t miss this opportunity tocommunicate to a wider layer of people theneed for a democratic, fighting union that actu-ally wins for students, and we mustn’t mirrorthe tactics of NUS’s rightwing by ignoringstudent activists on the ground.

What you can do:• Sign the statement in opposition to the

Governance Review changes, the ExtraordinaryConference and for a democratic, campaigningNUS — see www.free-education.org.uk/?p=397

• Get delegated to the ExtraordinaryConference and to next year’s annual confer-ence by running in your SU elections, ordemanding your SU holds elections for theExtraordinary Conference if it doesn’t plan to

• Putting a motion to your SU to oppose theReview — see the ENS website for modelmotions

• Holding a meeting on your campus — getin touch for a speaker

• Circulating the ENS statement as a petitionamong activists, campaigning groups to raiseawareness of the changes

For help or more information get in touchwith Sofie Buckland,

sofie.buckland@nus.org.uk

ALTHOUGH ENS welcomes the launchof a united campaign against theGovernance Review, we have someconcerns about the behaviour of the SWP

comrades and others at the launch meeting.Despite spending much of the day talkingabout the need for a broad campaign (as adefence of their position that the campaignshould have no positive proposals for NUSdemocracy), the SWP-led majority voteddown the nominations of Communist Studentsand Socialist Students comrades to the steer-ing committee in a shockingly sectarianmanoeuvre. (Their leadership also opposed theelection of ENS supporter Daniel Randall, butmany SWP members broke ranks and votedfor him anyway, so he got on.)

The justification from Rob Owen, the SWPmember on the NUS Executive, that suchgroups represent nothing in NUS, is demon-strably false in the case of Socialist Students.In any case, it is proved spurious by theSWP’s support for two members of the tiny,Stalinist Student Broad Left group beingelected to the committee. SBL only weaklyoppose the review, failed to vote against theentire document on the NUS executive, and inthe case of NUS Black Students’ OfficerRuqayyah Collector, who was a member ofthe review board, failed to raise the alarmwhile it was being put together.

Do the SWP think them worth having onboard because they too support the position ofa purely defensive campaign, and becausethey will be a reliable ally against ENS, if notagainst the NUS right-wing? And wasn’t theexclusion of socialist opponents motivatedpurely by sectarian factional vitriol?

Despite repeated attempts by ENS to meetwith Rob Owen to discuss a democratic struc-ture for the open meeting (which he hadagreed at the ENS gathering on 21 October),Rob cancelled the planned meeting andblocked any discussion until two and halfdays before 4 November, when he sent out anagenda and proposed slate to ENS convenorSofie Buckland and the Young Green’s AledDilwyn Fisher.

The agenda had no ENS speaker in theplanning session (later changed at the lastminute after we protested) and no process forsubmitting motions, counter proposals oralternative nominations for the committee.

This lead to a farce towards the end of themeeting, with the SWP chair Alys ElicaZaerin claiming the ENS proposal to adoptour statement was counterposed to, rather thanan addition to the SWP’s (bland but mostlyacceptable) motion on the activity of thecampaign, and that people couldn’t vote forboth. After twenty minutes ridiculous wran-gling over the order of voting and whichproposals constituted amendments, the SWPsuccessfully defeated both our amendments —for the steering committee to draft a motionagreeable to all rather than accepting theoutdated and politically lacking one from“Respect”, and for the ENS statement to bepolitical basis for the campaign. Of course, itis not unreasonable for the majority of meet-ing to vote for their own views; it is theirprocedural methods that we object to.

Perhaps worst of all was the process ofelections for the committee, in which addi-tions to Rob’s slate of ten had to gain a major-ity of the whole room to get elected — whichis how the SWP were easily able to excludeCommunist Students and Socialist Students,especially after five extra SWP membersturned up right at the end of meeting purely inorder to vote.

Meanwhile ENS and other comrades whovery politely asked SBL member RuqayyahCollector to confirm her political affiliationwhen standing for the committee wereaccused of witch-hunting (!); we hope thisisn’t an indication that the campaign will beclosed to political honesty and debate.

ENS welcomes the launch of the campaign,and will continue to work within it, pushingpositive demands as well as opposing thereview. We raise these criticisms in the spiritof political openness, not as a sectarian attack,and we hope SWP comrades will respond.Meanwhile we argued for and won open steer-ing meetings, where anyone can attend, speakand put proposals (though only the electedcommittee will vote), and hope that currentson the NUS left who were excluded from thecommittee will attend these meetings andcontinue to work within the campaign.

8 CAMPAIGNING

BY RHODRI EVANS

A“RE-LAUNCH to achieve workers’representation” — that is what support-ers of Solidarity will be arguing at theconference of the Labour RepresentationCommittee on 17 November.

The Bournemouth Labour Party conferencedecision to ban motions from unions and localLabour Parties at future conferences completeda full shut-down of the Labour Party’s livingpolitical link of accountability to the labourmovement. It has forced every socialist who hastaken the life of the Labour Party seriously —and every socialist should have done, becausefor over a hundred years the life of the LabourParty had been the centre of the political life ofthe British working class — to reassess.

Solidarity supporters will argue that the LRCshould “ start to work as a broader Workers’Representation Committee” and appeal to othersocialists to join it in creating “an axis to bring-ing about re-composition in the socialist andlabour movement”.

Straight away, in the months up to the 2008union conferences, the LRC must campaign inthe unions to reverse the Bournemouth decision.Looking further ahead, it should “campaign towin Trades Councils to join in the formation oflocal workers’ representation committees, aslocal affiliates of the Labour RepresentationCommittee... Local committees will be encour-aged to adopt a flexible approach, utilisingwhatever means available, to secure working-

class political representation”.We will also argue for the LRC to back the

initiative by the rail union RMT for an inde-pendent working-class slate in next year’sLondon mayor and GLA election, if the RMTgoes ahead with it.

The conference will hear other views.John McDonnell, who challenged for Labour

Party leader to succeed Tony Blair, is theLabour MP most active in the LRC, which alsohas the affiliation of five trade unions (CWU,ASLEF, Bakers; RMT, which has been expelledfrom the Labour Party; FBU, which disaffili-ated) and many union branches.

Like us, he believes a change of direction isnecessary. He has written: The vote to closedown democratic decision making at the Labourparty conference... demonstrated that the oldstrategy is largely over...

The Left has the difficult task of acceptingand explaining to others that the old routes intothe exercise of power and influence involvinginternal Labour Party mobilisations andmanoeuvres have largely been closed down. Wehave to face up to the challenge of identifyingand developing new routes...

But for “new routes” he proposes, to put itunkindly, a sort of “hippy syndicalism”.

New social movements have mobilised on avast array of issues ranging from climatechange, asylum rights, to housing and armssales...

The Left needs to open itself to co-operationwith progressive campaigns... The main politi-

cal parties are increasingly seen as irrelevant...There is an opportunity for exciting, freneticactivity capable of creating a climate ofprogressive hegemony which no governmentcould immunise itself from no matter how ruth-lessly it closes down democracy in its ownparty.

So we don’t need political parties any more?So workers should renounce any idea of havingour own party which can create a workers’government, and instead aim no higher than“creating a climate” to restrain hostile govern-ments?

McDonnell gets the term “hegemony” fromthe 1920s/30s Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.For Gramsci, the agency for socialist hegemonywas the revolutionary party, “the ModernPrince”, leading the workers, who in turn wouldlead other oppressed social groups and layers.But for McDonnell, diffuse movements can leadthe party?

Of course mobilisations like the anti-global-warming camp at Heathrow in August areimportant. The trouble with McDonnell’s argu-ment is that it can de-focus the LRC from thespecific work which it (and at present no otherbody) can do in the unions, and leave LRCsupporters in the local Labour Parties justjogging along with no perspective other thanwaiting for “progressive” gas emissions fromdiverse campaigns to warm them.

Socialist Appeal (a splinter of the old MilitantTendency) wants the Labour left to continueafter Bournemouth exactly as before. Its latest

Labour and union left deba

We need student unions which fight!National Union of Students calls special conference within next month to shut down democracy

BY REBECCA GALBRAITH

ON 29 October the Commons Scienceand technology committee published areview of the 1967 Abortion Act. Theymade three main recommendations:

• Upholding the 24 week time limit for abor-tion;

• Removing the need for women seeking anabortion to get two doctor’s signatures;

• Allowing nurses to perform first trimesterabortions.

Around the review there had been a drive bythe anti-abortion lobby and a small handful ofhighly vocal MPs, mainly men, mostly Tories,to chip away at abortion rights. They will notbe pleased with these recommendations.

An end to the “two doctors’ signatures”clause and the implied improvement in accessi-bility of early abortions are especially positivemove forwards for women. However, there isstill a lot to fight for.

First of all there is no guarantee that themajority of MPs will concur with the review’s

recommendations; it is possible that the alreadylimited access to late abortions will becomefurther restricted in exchange for a more liberalapproach to earlier abortions.

Second the committee’s brief was to do withscience — it had no mandate to look at theissue in terms of women’s choice, let alone

women’s liberation! The findings of this reviewwill be used to inform MPs debating an amend-ment to the 1967 Abortion Act, as part of theHuman Tissues and Embryos Bill. The commit-tee ruled out examination of ethical or moralissues surrounding abortion time limits, sayingit would take evidence on new medical inter-ventions and techniques that may increase thechances of survival of premature infants. Thisreduces the argument surrounding time-limitsto one of “foetal viability”; the rights of thewoman remain unacknowledged. If medicaladvances meant, for instance, that a foetus wasviable at 16 weeks our position should notchange, an abortion at 16 weeks and beyondshould still be a woman’s right.

And the report itself states, “Because werecognise what the science and medicalevidence can tell us is only one of the manyfactors that are taken into account when legis-lating on this issue, we have not made anyrecommendations as to how MPs should vote.”Social, ethical and moral issues will certainlynot be excluded from the main debate; the pro-

choice movement cannot delude itself that thereis a significant contingent of MPs feminist inethics or morality.

And was much controversy within thecommittee itself, culminating with two ToryMPs, Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink, refusing

to put their names to the report. Their MinorityReport contradicted the majority findings andput forward a series of what amount to anti-choice, anti-women policies. Dorries and Spinkaccuse the Science and Technology SelectCommittee of being “hijacked” by “powerfulvested interests” in the “abortion industry”.Their response is a reminder of the kind ofviews held by some “members of the house”.

Thirdly although the review does not advo-cate a reduction in the time limit, it does noth-ing to advocate an increase in the accessibilityof abortions for women after 14 weeks.

The British Medical Association, who gaveevidence to the committee, warned that“changes in relation to first trimester abortionshould not adversely impact upon the availabil-ity of later abortions.” But Dr Vincent Argent,who gave evidence to the select committee, hasproposed on Radio Four to make the abortionlaw more liberal under 16 weeks, but tougherthere after. While he was not calling for anoverall reduction in the time limit, he wasrecommending that the only proviso for abor-tions after 16 weeks should be “grave risk tophysical or mental health” of the woman, i.e.no so called “social reasons”.

Many of the circumstances in which womenseek late abortions would be ruled out: womenwho don’t know they are pregnant, who thinkthey are menopausal, who are too frightened toacknowledge their pregnancy any earlier, orwhose circumstances drastically change.However, Argent also said that agencies such asthe British Pregnancy Advisory Service, orother, more expensive, private agencies maystill provide abortions in these circumstances.As far as he was concerned if private clinicswant to do late abortions, fine, their choice, butscrew everyone who can’t access this or pay!

This approach backs up the nasty politicalconsensus already in place. Already the NHSdoes not often do late abortions. Doctor Argentwas frank about the fact that many NHSdoctors already refuse abortions after 14 weeksand that many hospitals have arbitrary cut offpoints at 18, 16 or even 14 weeks. Some peoplewill be willing to go along with this consensus

in exchange for the liberalisation of early abor-

tions; it will hit hardest at the most vulnerable.

Finally while the call to allow “suitably

trained and experienced nurses and midwives”

to carry out abortions makes a lot of sense,