>New Worker Online Digest > >Week commencing 24th March, 2000. > >1) Editorial - Scratching the surface. > >2) Lead story - Another bosses' budget. > >3) Feature article - Unions fight for Rover jobs. > >4) International story - Russian elections and the dire prospects ahead. > >5) British news item - Livingstone for mayoral control over London health >services. > > >1) Editorial > >Scratching the surface. > >CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown's budget announcement last Tuesday of an extra £4 >billion for public services is welcome news. The £2 billion extra money >authorised for the National Health Service and £1 billion for education are >long overdue and desperately needed in both services. > > Even with this boost the NHS and state education services will remain >seriously underfunded, staff shortages will still be a problem and they >will continue to be threatened by backdoor privatisation schemes such as >the Private Finance Initiative for capital investments and private business >involvement in education. > > The government needs to be kept under pressure to increase the funding of >these and the othlr public services beyond the measures of this budget and >to restore full democratic control and accountability. > > But though the budget gave some transfusions of cash it failed to make >long-term changes or commitments. In particular, it ignored the widespread >demand to restore the link between retirement pensions and average male >earnings and offered instead a few one-off payments like an increase to the >winter fuel allowance and free TV licences for the over-75s. These measures >are no substitute for a decent pension and are in any case not guaranteed >to be permanent. > > The Chancellor has managed to keep big smiles on the faces of the bosses, >the City and the well-off because he has cut income tax by a penny, capital >gains tax by five per cent and promised to keep a tight hold of wages. > > He claims the cuts in taxes coupled with a boost in public spending has >been made possible by having bigger government reserves and that these >exist because the government has been successful in bringing down >unemployment. > > Well, this is a bit like a gardener claiming the flowers grew well because >he had made it rain. The Treasury has benefited from an upturn in the >economy (at least in the South East). It is part of the cycle of boom and >slump that always occurs under capitalism and one which will inevitably >turn into slump once again. > > And of course, if the cycle was in a downturn and unemployment was going >through the roof the government would be quick to deny responsibility and >admit that it was all part of a much wider slump. > > The fact is that the government of the day is never able to plan or >control a capitalist economy apart from making small adjustments to the >financial levers. That was obvious last week when the government showed its >total inability to save thousands of threatened jobs at Rover -- an issue >the Chancellor ignored in his speech. > > Under capitalism virtually all of the economy is in private hands. >Workplaces and the livelihoods they provide are treated like any other form >of private property. They can be bought, sold or disposed of at the will or >whim of the owners. The workers' investment of time, energy, skill and >creativity count for nothing once the faceless parasites who own the >workplaces decide to move their assets into some other venture. > > These life-changing economic issues are never addressed by government >budgets. All we get is a penny on the price of beer and numerous minor >adjustments to the system of taxation, benefits and services. > > Despite the extra funds for some public services, the balance of the >budget is in favour of the rich. Income Tax cuts, even small ones, give >most to those who have the most and give least to those who have the least. >And, as a proportion of total income, increases of excise duty hit the >pockets of the working class much harder than those of the rich. > > Gordon Brown may well have pleased New Labour's upwardly thrusting, fair >weather supporters, but he can expect vigorous protests from pensioners, >from the thousands being thrown out of work in both manufacturing and >service industries and the low paid. > > ************************** > >2) Lead story > >Another bosses' budget. > >by Daphne Liddle > >PENSIONERS reacted angrily to Gordon Brown's latest budget which did >absolutely nothing to protect or restore the value of the basic state pension. > > What help there was for pensioners was targeted at only the lowest income >groups with a rise in the minimum guaranteed income from £75 a week to £82 >and £172 for couples. > > And the winter fuel allowance for heating will rise from £l00 to £150. >This sounds generous but it is for each household, not each pensioner if >more than one are living under the same roof. > > And this simple lump sum payment is not a permanent commitment but up to >the chancellor each year. It does nothing to raise the level ofthe basic >pension and count towards further percentage increases. > > Pensioner organisations are furious that they are now left with the >predicted annual rise of just 75 pence because pensions are linked to >inflation, not to average earnings. > > The extra £2 billion for the National Health Service is to be welcomed so >long as it is not submitted to the usual Government conjuring tricks with >money where the same sum is counted in several different columns, making >the extra money seem like several times what it actually is. > > Gordon Brown made no change to the level ofincome tax but a cut of one >penny in the pound to 22p announced last year comes into force now. He has >raised personal allowances by £50 to £4,385 which will give a little help >to low paid workers. > > Education is to get another £l billion but much of this will be handed >directly to the schools to spend on extra staff or books and equipment as >they see fit. > > This further undermines the role of the education authorities and paves >the way for speeding up the privatisation of the administration of schools. >The Government has signalled it intends to press ahead with this now even >when schools are not deemed to be failing. > > Petrol will rise by two pence a gallon. > > Very little has been made available for improving public transport which >is likely to deteriorate further. > > The Chancellor could have given tax breaks to those employers who give >their workers season tickets or travel cards. But clearly the giant oil >lobby is still in the driving seat and public transport is in private >hands. Money invested there would not necessarily improve the service so >much as the profits unless it was brought back into public ownership. > > MrBrown has increased stamp duty on the more expensive houses, those >costing over £250,000. Hopefully this may have some effect on spiralling >house prices but it would have been better to spend more on new council >housing stock. > > Child benefit has been increased by just 50p a week to £15.50 and family >tax credits have risen slightly. The state maternity grant has risen from >£100 to £300 and about time too. Even now it is hardly enough to buy all >that is needed for a new baby except through the second had columns of >local newspapers. And there is nothing to boost the provision of childcare. > > The family tax credits will again, indirectly end up in the pockets of low >paying bosses who need not pay so much in wages now. > > On the other hand small businesses, especially those in the new >information technology sector, have been given a big boost. Capital gains >tax is to be cut from 40 per cent to just 10 per cent over four years. > > Once again It is a bosses' budget with few big changes but lots of little >adjustments to keep the Government on track for its plans to undermine >local government, force us to work harder and longer for lower pay and pay >through the nose for private pension provision that may or may not still be >there when we need it. > > ********************* > > >3) Feature article > >Unions fight for Rover jobs. > >by Caroline Colebrook > >A MASS meeting of conveners and national officers in Birmingham last >Tuesday voted to seek "an acceptable alternative" to the sale of Rover by >its German owners, BMW. > > And on Wednesday union national officers travelled to Munich to try to >persuade BMW not to go ahead with the sale of the loss-making subsidiary to >Alchemy. > > Meanwhile Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers seems to regard the >sell-off as a fait accompli. He is set to talk with BMW bosses in Munich on >Thursday about picking up the pieces and rebuilding the future. > > He said: "The events of last week are now behind us but we have to live >and work with the consequences. So this week we will begin the task of >ensuring the future of those workers who remain and to start building a >future for those who are facing the uncertainty of either a new owner or >potential redundancy". > > The union leaders have been told that if the sale to Alchemy goes ahead it >will cost a total of 8,500 jobs. > > Around 2,500 will go at the Longbridge plant 2,000 at Power Train, 2,000 >at the Gaydon site, 1,500 at Swindon and 500 at Cowley. > Alchemy is a venture capital group and is most likely to be interested in >asset stripping. > > BMW has decided to sell the profitable bits of Rover elsewhere. Land Rover >production is to be sold to Ford and it is likely to keep the Cowley plant >for production of the new Mini. > > Bill Morris, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' >Union, commented: "While we would have preferred for the entire Rover group >to stay united with one owner, with Land Rover the jewel in the crown, we >nevertheless welcome the bold decision by the Ford Motor company to buy the >Land Rover operation. > > "We are confident that Ford have the experience and resources to maintain >Land Rover as a 'best in class' vehicle. Land Rover and Ford are a good fit." > > But cuts have already been made at Cowley.The producdon of the Rover 75 >flagship model is to be drastically scaled down after disappointing sales. > > The output has now been reduced from 2,200 cars a week to just 2,000. The >night shift is being axed but so far none of the 3,500 workers has been >given notice. > > Cuts are also being made at Longbridge where the Rover 25 and 45 are >built. Currently around 4,400 cars are made here each week but that is due >to be drastically reduced. > > Unions are planning a mass march and rally to protest at the sell-off and >cuts in Birmingham on 1 April. They expect around a quarter of a million to >attend. > > Speaking for the Transport and General Workers' Union, chief negotiator >Tony Woodley said: "It is no exaggeration to say this campaign is now a >battle for Britain and British manufacturing and it has struck a chord with >the British people." > >Addressing the mass meeting of shop stewards at Gaydon, Birmingham, he said >that Stephen Byers would be prepared to pledge Government money if some >other buyer, or partner, than Alchemy were to come forward. > > This would cost the Government less than tens of thousands in unemployment >benefit. > > Mr Woodley said: "Two major manufacturers I have been in contact with are >looking to see whether it may be of interest." > > The one option the Government has failed to propose is that what is left >of the once proud British Motor Corporation should be returned to public >ownership and production planned to meet the changing needs of our society. > > ************************* > >4) International story > >Russian elections and the dire prospects ahead. > >by Steve Lawton > >RUSSIAN elections, officially underway this Sunday, are unlikely to yield >any surprises. Acting President Vladimir Putin is widely expected to be >confirmed, though this will not reflect the fact that many millions will >fail to vote. > > The second war against Chechen separatism -- the first in the period >1994-6 was never resolved, has demonstrated Russian determination to defend >its sovereignty from which Putin will gain. He has shown that there is a >line beyond which a threat to the Russian state will be actively resisted, >from wherever it comes. > > He intends to keep troops in place while the process of securing Chechenia >continues. But if there is no permanent solution, such deployments may >become permanent in the future. Meddling Western interests, particularly in >oil, are moving to take command of the resources of the northern Caucasus. > > Putin is backed by the Union of Right Forces (SPS), which includes key >leaders Like Boris Nemtsov who recently called for capital flight to be >returned to Russia, so long as it has a free 'responsible' hand and creates >Western-friendly opportunities. > > US and British companies want a centrist reform government to stabilise >extraction of profit, in preparation for intervention in untapped regions >of Russia under the cover of regional development. > > State industry and property, now largelv in private hands, especially oil >and gas, telecommunications, raw materials, so-called banking and finance, >is expected to remain outside the Duma's (parliament's) power to intervene. >And the Duma, Russia's lower house, itself represents only a fraction of >Russian people. > > Opposition forces point out that Putin has not put forward an economic >programme for Russia's crisis and its future for votes to decide upon -- >something he said he had no intention of declaring a head of the elections >-- and that he will toughen Presidential powers at the expense of the Duma. > > The war in Chechenia strengthens that possibility, particularly since it >can now be argued that decisive powers are needed to maintain an all-fronts >vigilance in its wake, to protect the state and, supposedly, the peoples' >security. Industrial and defence capabilities have been targeted by Putin, >which may be linked to Nemtsov's position. This focus is also related to >the difficulties over de-nuclearisation and the US threat of a new Star >Wars emphasis. > > Putin has said that he will refrain from overt forms of publicity >suggesting a confidence in the outcome thaf in effecf tacitly mocks the >whole show. Clearly, as the cosy transition from Yeltsin to Putin revealed, >he represents the continuity of interests preserving the wealthy minority. > > Even so, as a realist, he will increasingly be faced with the >disintegrating effect of deteriorating conditions of the people in Russia, >driven through in part by the relentless US-led economic and military >encroachment in the former Soviet Union. In fact, the entire basis of >Russia's wealth is threatened. > > Firstly, counter-revolution and Western connivance ended the Soviet state, >which laid it wide open to transnational interests as it fell from global >power ranking. Secondly, the lives of most Russians were quickly assaulted >to the point where, now, more than half are said to be barely existing >below a harsh subsistence level. That's more than equivalent to Britain's >entire population being at or near complete destitution. > > Once Soviet power was destroyed, it was inevitable that the diminished >state would become directly exposed to the interests of Western >transnationals. The consequences were immediate: workers, having lost >power, lost virtually everything, the social and economic infrastructure >was wrecked, and ethnic hostility continues to be fomented. > > Until the Russian people regain state power and a genuine commonwealth of >peoples' states -- the former Republics -- is created, imperialist >interests will continue to toy with tiny rich elites and the puppet regimes >of former Soviet Republics. Millions, meanwhile, will sink deeper into >desperation and conflict. > > Civil war, as many communists have warned, could well stem from increased >imperialist-backed attempts to undermine Russian territorial integrity if >nothing is done by the Russian leadership to remedy the economic crisis >faced by the people. > > ********************* > >5) British news item > >Livingstone for mayoral control over London health services. > >KEN LIVINGSTONE last week told a debate at St Thomas's Hospital that London >would not have witnessed so many bed closures if the health officials >running London's health services were accountable to the public for their >decisions. > > He said: "If a mayor had responsibility for health, you would not have had >the cuts or closures we have seen in recent years. They would have been >quickly voted out." > > He called for the Greater London Assembly to be given the role of regional >health authority, with wide-ranging powers over resources and planning of >hospitals. > > Frank Dobson, as Health Secretary, oversaw the Turnberg review of London >hospitals and follows the Government line that the National Health Service >would cease to be national if the capital was given devolved powers over >health. > > The Government is also apparently worried that if decisions such as the >closure of hospitals had to be taken by politically elected bodies they >would be much more difficult even if they were "necessary for financial >reasons". > > Geoff Martin, speaking for the campaign group London Health Emergency, >said: "One of the reasons we have constant pandemonium in London's >hospitals is that no one really knows who is making the decisions that >affect us. > > "There is a real opportunity here for the GLA to have a role in the >planning and development of our NHS and the possibility of allocating the >health authority budgets. > > "If the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have been given devolved >responsibility for health, why should the same system not work for London." > > Health service managers are very much opposed to this. > > Frank Dobson has proposed a London-wide lottery to raise money for health >and education spending in the capital. > > But there are fears that this will simply lead to cuts in central >government revenue to London services and leave hospitals and schools >dependent on lottery money. > > ********************* > > >New Communist Party of Britain Homepage > >http://www.newcommunistparty.org.uk > >A news service for the Working Class! > >Workers of all countries Unite! __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
