> >New Worker Online Digest > >Week commencing 11th August, 2000. > >1) Editorial - Nuclear danger. > >2) Lead story - Labour's grand NHS plan. > >3) Feature article - Genocide in our name. > >4) International story - Arafat in new summit bid. > >5) British news item - Campaign to defend council housing. > > >1) Editorial > >Nuclear danger. > >CONGRATULATIONS to the peace campaigners who protested at the start of this >month against the Trident nuclear weapon system based at Faslane in >Scotland. These resident activists have once again focused attention on >Britain's fleet of death -- its main arsenal of genocidal destruction. > > The enormous cost of purchasing this nuclear system from the United States >in the first place and the year-upon-year expense of maintaining, arming, >staffing and equipping it has always been borne by the workers of this >country. Yet none of us benefits in any way from this obscenity. > > We used to be told, during the years of the Cold War, that Polaris and the >later upgraded Trident systems were needed to defend Britain from a Soviet >attack. That was never the truth. The purpose of these nuclear submarine >fleets was to try and achieve a US-led Nato arsenal capable of striking >first in a nuclear exchange and overwhelming the nuclear defences of the >former Soviet Union. > > Trident, with its US-designed targeting system was never an independent >British weapon but was always intended to be used at the bchest of the >United States in conjunction with nuclear-armed Cruise missiles and the US >Trident fleet in a co-ordinated military attack. > > In effect, Trident was a weapon system designed to threaten and defeat >socialism and to setback the advances of working people throughout the >world. By using anti-Soviet lies and propaganda and flying in the face of >the mounting peace campaigns, the working classes of Britain, the United >States and France were forced into paying for a totally self-defeating >nuclear arms race. > > But the truth will always out. The Cold War lies of Western politicians >were al last exposed when the counter-rcvolution in the Soviet Union >removed the main plank of the West's arguments for keeping the arms race >going -- and yet still the major nuclear arsenals, including Trident, >continued to flourish. > > The reasons for this apparent insanity lie in the imperialist nature of >the Western governments. The possession of nuclear forces capable of >wreaking global destruction is seen by the imperialist leaders as a visible >measure of their military might, the ultimate threat in the quest to >control as much of the world as possible. > > These arsenals also give comfort to the very rich who live in constant >fear of the poor and the masses of people they exploit and destroy. And it >maintains their own national bourgeoise elite's position in the pecking >order of imperialist countries. > > Of course those countries which are supposed to do as the big powers say >-- which is everyone else -- are now posed as a potential threat to world >peace. What is actually threatened when a medium or small country resists >the will of imperialism in any way is the constant in-flow of dollars, >francs, pounds and D-marks to the west. > > As with the Cold War lies, the concept of "rogue states" has been invented >to justify a further jacking-up of the West's nuclear capabilities. > > The supposed danger from this list of developing world, which have issued >no military threats to the West, is being used now to destroy the >Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and provide the United States, assisted by >Britain, with a free hand to create a new star wars-type nuclear capacity >that will span the globe. The danger of nuclear war has lurched nearer. > > Unfortunately Cold War propaganda led many peace campaigners to assume the >danger of nuclear war was over when the Soviet Union collapsed. Nothing >could be further from the truth -- the threat of war always came from the >imperialist camp and sadly that has not gone away. > >Today's world needs the peace campaigns to grow once more. We need to >expose the real threat to peace and the particular dangers in the attacks >upon the ADM Treaty. > > This past week has seen the 55th anniversaries of the nuclear bombing of >Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- the first use of nuclear weapons. That event must >also be the last time nuclear weapons were used -- it's up to us to join >the fight for peace now! > > ********************* > >2) Lead story > >Labour's grand NHS plan. > >by Daphne Liddle > >PRIME Minister Tony Blair last month unveiled the Government's five-year >Grand Plan to transform the National Heaith Service -- and in doing so >vastly increase the role of the private sector. > > He has promised to recruit 7,500 more consultants within the five years, >an extra 2,000 general practitioners and some 20,000 extra nurses and 6,750 >therapists. > > We are promised 7,000 extra beds, 100 "hospital projects" and an "NHS >modernisation agency". > > There are going to he new contracts for doctors and nurses at all levels, >better pay, better training and more choice for patients with redress if >operations are cancelled. And those waiting lists will be cut. > > If all this sounds too good to be true, remember next year is likely to be >an election year. We have campaigned for more spending on the NHS and if >these promises are delivered we will not complain. > > But we are concerned. It all sounds marvellous until we start doing some >sums and comparing the Grand Plan with what is actually happening on the >wards and in the GP surgeries. > > This week saw the opening of a brand new hospital in Dartford, Kent. But >is not an NHS hospital. It is a hospital built and owned by the private >sector and rented b the NHS under the private finance initiative. > > It is the first of many being built around che country under this scheme >and the Government has made it clear that this is the future of the NHS. >There is nothing in the grand plan about capital provision for buildings to >be actually owned by the NHS. > > They are all to he done away with as old hat and replaced by the spanking >new privately owned hospitals that are only rented by the NHS. > > The Dartford hospital looks marvellous but it has 30 per cent fewer beds >than the two old hospitals it replaces -- and around 20 per cent less staff. > > The private builders decided the number of beds -- not the doctors -- on >the basis of what would be most profitable. And this again is to be the >pattern throughout the country. > > So what of the 7,000 extra beds promised? A Dartford hospital manager >explained to an interviewer that in the new NHS there will be lots more >beds "out there in the community" and "in people's homes". Oh well! > > Some of these "extra" beds already exist -- in private hospitals. The >Grand Plan envisages using these a lot more to help reduce operation >waiting lists. > > This will provide an endless transfusion of taxpayers' money into the >private health sector. Itis hardly the most economic and efficient way to >provide healthcare for the nation. > > The Grand Plan talks about providing intermediate care for the elderly >after operations. > > The reality is that this will mean elderly patients being shipped off to >already existing private nursing homes to free up beds during winter >crises, to forestall embarrassing pictures of patients sleeping on trolleys >in casualty departments for long periods because there are no beds. > > Patients who have just had major surgery or other procedures do need high >quality convalescent care. But NHS money would go further to provide more >of it if the private sector did not have to have its cut to promote profits. > > As NHS hospitals are being closed all around, we are told repeatedly that >we need bigger, more centralised hospitals. Now it seems the far smaller, >less equipped private hospitals are OK. > > We have already discovered that the Government has precious little power >over the privatised bus and rail companies. Services are deteriorating >while watchdogs are ignored and fat cats grow fatter. > > When the nuts and bolts of the NHS have been transferred to the private >sector through PFI and by other means, the Government will have little or >no control over the number of beds or anything else much. The banks will >make those decisions. > > Cleaning and catering staff in the PFI hospitals will be employed by the >private sector owners. Their pay and conditions will be beyond Government >control. > > And the service these can provide will depend on how many of them there >are, how skilled they are and the budgets they have. There will he a direct >clash becween the needs of the patients and the need to make profits. Guess >which will win. > > GP surgeries are currently undergoing transformations into primary care >groups, then primary care trusts. These will put most health services to >the community under the direct control of the GPs. > > Only the whole programme is being delayed through lack of funding at the >moment. > > There are some other small print aspects of the Grand Plan that are >worrying. Once the private sector is in control of the nuts and bolts of >the NHS and the GPs are in control of community services, that doesn't have >the local health authorities much to do. > > And so they are likely to dissappear -- and the NHS will no longer be >accountable to the electorate. > > And if it should happen that the Grand Plan does not deliver all the >wonderful promises, who will you complain to? > > The Grand Plan includes the abolition of 152 community health councils in >England. These were established in 1974 to act as the patient's friend and >advocate, as well as having scrutiny and inspection roles. Oh well! > > The Grand Plan is of course all based on the extra budget that Chancellor >Gordon Brown had put aside through his "prudent" economising and control of >the economy. > > Is that funding safe? Rocketing house prices have just started to crash -- >just like they did in the late 80s, just before that last big recession. >Manufacturing industry is in dire straits and the trade gap is yawning. > > Could it be that after the next election there might be an economic crisis >and the Grand Plan budget will have to be slashed! With the private sector >in control of the nuts and bolts, what sort of NHS will we really have in >five year's time? > > ********************** > >3) Feature article > >Genocide in our name. > >by Renee Sams > >HUNDREDS of demonstrators threw themselves down in Whitehall last Monday, >stopping the Westminster traffic for more than an hour in a protest marking >the tenth anniversary of the imposition of sanctions against Iraq. > > As fast as police dragged them away others laid down again in their place. >This led to four arrests. > > Among those dragged off the street by police was Caroline Lucas, Green MEP >for the southeast region. > > She said she was prepared to be arrested if it was a way of getting the >issue raised. > > "Half a million children have died as a direct result of economic >sanctions on Iraq," she said. "It is strategically redundant." > > Dressed in black and carrying lilies, the demonstration marched down >Whitehall in a peaceful protest calling on the Government to lift the >sanctions against Iraq. > > More than 4,000 children are dying in Iraq every month for want of food, >medicine and other essentials because of the sanctions. Many hundreds of >thousands of children have died. > > And in addition to sanctions, Iraq is also still subjected to daily >bombing raids by the United States and Britain. Targets are essential parts >of the countrv's infrastructure such as food factories and water treatment >plants. > > The protest was organiscd by Voices in the Wilderness to say that ten >years of suffering is enough. One of the organisers, Nadje al-Ali of Women >in Black said the demonstration had been successful in attracting media >attention. > > She has relatives living in Iraq and said: "We are calling for the >Government to lift the sanctions. The oil for food programme is not >sufficient. > > "Even if we lifted sanctions tomorrow, it would take generations to undo >what has been done ." > >premium > > They pointed out that in February the Unites Nations Humanitarian >Co-ordinator for Iraq, Hans von Sponek, resigned from his post in protest >at what the sanctions are doing to the people of Iraq. > > His predecessor, Dennis Halliday, had also resigned in protest in 1998, >saying: "We are destroying an entire society. It is as simple as that. It >is illegal and immoral." > > The protesters in Whitehall were prepared to break the law and stop the >traffic in Whitehall by holding a "die-in" to highlight the far greater >crime being carried out in our name. > > On the previous day protester David Rolstone from west Wales had climbed >the Millennium Wheel to draw attention to the effects of the sanctions. > > ************************* > >4) International story > >Arafat in new summit bid. > >by our Middle East Affairs Correspondent > >PALESTINIAN President Yasser Arafat is moving to salvage the American peace >initiative, calling for another peace summit in the United States later >this month. > > Last Tuesday the Palestinian leader said that it could take place >following Clinton's Democratic National Convention which ends on 17 August >and he hinted that it has already got the blessing of the White House. > > "US President Bill Clinton said a new summit could take place after the >Democratic convention," Arafat told the Arab media during a visit to the >United Arab Emirates. > > In Tel Aviv the response was cool. The beleaguered Labour led coalition is >breaking up following the humiliating failure of Labour veteran Shimon >Peres to win the presidential ballot in the Israeli parliament, the >Knesset. Premier Barak told his cabinet last Sunday that it was " too soon" >to talk about a new summit. "It's not clear yet if the Palestinians are >ready for a breakthrough," he said. > > But leading Israeli daily Haarerz reports that Clinton has told Barak he >would host a new summit if Israel and the Palestinians submitted proposals >in advance which would lead to agreement. > > Clinton and the Democrats would clearly like a major diplomatic triumph on >the eve of the US presidential elections. Clinton gets his Nobel prize. His >successor, Al Gore, gets the boost which could put him into the Oval >Office. Barak also wants a filip for his own chances in the next Israeli >election but what's in for Arafat? > > Well, veteran Democratic politician and former president Jimmy Carter may >have given a clue to Clinton's thinking in an article he wrote in the New >York Times. Carter, who presided over the first Camp David agreement >between Israel and Egypt back in 1978, basically called for a further >interim agreement while putting the thorny question of Jerusalem on the >back-burner. > > This would certainly suit Yasser Arafat, not to mention Barak. Another >Israeli pull-back based on Barak's plan, leaving Israel in occupation but >not annexation of "Greater Jerusalem"; a trade-off of some land in the >Negev in return for other parts of the West Bank; Palestinian legal access >to the Islamic shrines in Arab Jerusalem and a very limited return of a >fraction of the Palestinians to Israel, has already been put on the table. > > In fact it differs little from the old "Allon Plan" Labour presented in >the early Seventies and the refugee return -- solely on the basis of >reuniting families -- goes back to an offer made by Israel in the early >fifties by a previous Labour-led government to allow 100,000 Palestinians >the right to return. As a further enticement Arafat would get international >recognition of Palestinian independence. > > US imperialism is still not ready or willing to recognize the legitimate >rights of the four million or so Palestinian refugees. On the other hand it >as not as committed to a "final settlement" as it appears to be -- at least >not in the short-tenn. A continuing "peace process" -- one which could span >another generation would suit the strategic aims of America in the region. > > What they don't want is a resurgence of Islamic or Arab nationalism which >could happen if the whole process falls and confrontation begins. That >prospect is also concentrating minds in Washington and Tel Aviv. > > ********************* > >5) British news item > >Campaign to defend council housing. > >THIS CAMPAIGN to stop the privatisation of council housing throughout >Britain is building fast with several major events this summer and a >quarterly four-page newsletter, Defend Council Housing. > > Southwark Tenants' Association (south London) and the public sector union >Unison jointly organised a conference in a Peckham School on 1 July. This >was followed by a lobby of Parliament on 19 July. > > There are also leaflets, explaining the four big myths on housing >transfer. The first is that "stock transfer is not privatisation". > > The campaign explains that privatisation of public services is the >transfer for the main control and running of those services from the public >sector, via elected MPs and councillors to the private sector via unelected >boardrooms of businesses and banks -- removing all public accountability. > > This is because financial lenders will get involved in housing transfer >only if they are sure, they will he free from public accountability in >order to maximise profit. > > The second myth is that "social landlords" provide "not for profit" public >housing. The campaigm points out that housing associations and the new >housing companies are businesses. > > The bulk of housing associations' funding comes from high loans from banks >and financial institutians which have to he paid back with interest. > > That is why housing association rents are almost always higher than >council rents, in many cases up to double. > > There is also no evidence that they provide a better service. A recent >report from the Housing Corporation fund that in key landlord functions >services from housing associations are deteriorating. > > The third myth is that "you can stay with the council in an armslength >company". These companies allow the council to keep ownership but transfer >management to private associations. > > In effect these will he no different to private companies because the >banks have made it clear that a condition of borrowing will be that the new >companies are "independent" with lenders and "experts" in the driving seat >-- not councillors or tenants. > > The fourth myth is that there is no alternative to transfer. There is >money available to provide high quality, low-cost housing. > > The national repairs bill is estimated to be �19 billion. The Government >is prepared to set aside �12 billion to write off council housing debts to >facilitate transfer. > > In addition another �10 billion has been syphoned off from council rents >to pay housing benefits, instead of this coming from general taxation. That >money should be used to improve council housing. > > There is some cause for optimism that the campaign to defend council >housing could be successful. The 8 June issue of to allow councils to >borrow for housing repairs and capital expenditure are set to be included >in a Green Paper on local government controls, councils could finance extra >borrowing to pay for urgent repairs -- a move which could lead councils to >reconsider their stock transfer." > > Thirty-eight MPs have already signed an early day motion expressing alarm >at the Housing Green Paper's aim of transferring 200,000 homes per year >over the next ten years and encouraging private finance initiative schemes. > > This Government was not elected with a mandate to privatise council >housing. In the run up to the next election it is vital that defending >council housing is made a big campaigning issue. > > * For further information and campaigning materials, contact Defend >Council Housing, c/o Haggeston Community Centre, 179 Haggerston Road, >London E8 4JA, phone/fax 020 7275 9994. >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >website: www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk > > > > ********************* > > >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] ___________________________________
