> >New Worker Online Digest > >Week commencing 10th November, 2000. > >1) Editorial - Billion dollar bash. > >2) Lead story - We want the link! > >3) Feature article - Midwifes face 16-hour shifts. > >4) International story - Israel goes to war. > >5) British news item - Hackney people rally against massive cuts. > > >1) Editorial > >Billion dollar bash. > >JUDGING by the yards of media footage of the United States Presidential >election anyone would think the peoples of the whole world were entitled to >a vote. We have been regaled with film clips from Party rallies, analyses >of the campaigns and endless speculation from political pundits both - >British and American. > > In part this barrage of news about the "race for the White House" is >poured over us in order to demonstrate the supposed virtues of American >"democracy" and to hold it up as a model system of government. It is also >done to leave no one in any doubt that the US is the most powerful >imperialist country in the world and that all its doings must therefore be >of interest to everyone in every corner of the planet. > > In reality the world sees that the Presidential race is effectively >between two wealthy men, both trying desperately to conceal their woeful >lack of personality and both heading multi-million dollar campaigns to sell >themselves to the public. It is said the overall spending on this election >has run into billions of dollars. > > Clearly any candidate who cannot put their hands on millions of dollars is >an automatic outsider in the race -- working class America never ends up >being represented by a working class American. > > Despite the billion dollar bash, the endless TV ads and razz-matazz >rallies the turnout in US elections is usually very low -- millions of >Americans simply don't or can't register to vote and many registered voters >remain uninspired by the candidates, the parties and the policies. > > Essentially the Republican and Democrat parties represent different >strands within the American ruling class and different big business >interests. It goes without saying that they are both wholehearted backers >of US capital and the capitalist system. > > For the American public the differences are largely concerned with matters >of taxation and social spending -- not that either party believes in high >taxation or high social spending. The Democrats, who rely upon the votes of >working class mericans, put forward some forms of social safety net for the >poor and for health care. > > But as was seen under Clinton, these programmes can easily be blown off >course by right wing pressure or by down turns in the economy. Unlike the >British Labour Party, the US Democrats have no historic and organisational >links to the trade unions. > > The Republicans -- the more conservative party -- want the lowest possible >taxes and the lowest possible social spending. Their electioneering is also >given financial support by reactionary groups such as anti-abortion >campaigns and the gun lobby. > > Foreign affairs are sometimes different because of the different business >interests being put to the fore. For instance the oil industry sometimes >has different concerns to those of domestic manufacturers and so on. > > But the election will certainly not change the world. Both parties are >hostile to socialism, both are committed to Nato and the other US-inspired >organisations. Both will continue to move the goalposts against the >developing world by dominating the World Trade Organisation, the >International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both will strive to advance >US interests at the expense of the world's >poor. > > Whoever goes through the White House doors it is certain that millions of >American citizens along with most of the peoples of the world, will have to >continue the struggle for peace, a decent standard of living, education, >healthcare and justice. > > The leaders of the United States may brag about the wonders of US >democracy but there is nothing wonderful about it -- it is still the >dictatorship of the rich and it will be the rich who will reap the wonders. > > The struggle for real change -- for a socialist future will continue in >the US and in every corner of the world ! > > ********************* > >2) Lead story > >We want the link! > >by Daphne Liddle > >CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown last Wednesday boxed very clever with his >pre-budget speech -- indicating what next April's budget will contain -- >and left the fuel protest lobby busy with their calculators trying to work >out exactly what he had given them. > > But the pensioners knew straight away that despite some generous handouts >he still had not restored the link between the basic state pension rate and >average male earnings -- leaving the long-term future of the state pension >still in jeopardy. > > Mr Brown conceded no immediate fuel tax cuts but promised that from next >April it will be frozen. If world tax prices remain high this freeze will >be extended another year. > > But there will be a two pence a litre excise duty cut on ultra-low sulphur >petrol next April in addition to a penny cut from October this year and a >three pence cut in ultra-low sulphur diesel from next April. > > This ultra-low sulphur fuel will, he claims, become available throughout >the country within the next year. > > He says it is more environmentally friendly. Environmentalists says it >will do nothing to ease global wanning and climate change but is likely to >improve air quality for those with breathing problems and reduce acid rain. > > The rate of excise duty on red diesel, for farm vehicles is to be frozen >permanently and vehicle duty for such vehicles abolished. > > There will be a lower rate of vehicle tax for lorries -- the 100 different >existing rates being replaced by just seven. The average trucker will save >�715 a year and Mr Brown said this is equivalent to three pence off the >price of a litre of diesel. > > Mr Brown claimed these fuel tax cuts will costs the Treasury �l billion. > > There will be a Brit tax disc meaning that foreign owned lorries can be >charged at a higher rate for using British roads. This is likely to be >challenged in the courts as discriminatory under the recent Human Rights Act. > > The overall changes will mean a cut in motoring costs equivalent to four >pence a litre and eight pence a litre for haulage firms. > > This is a step in the right direction but does not go nearly as far as the >fuel protest lobby would have liked. > >It means the Treasury is still relying on indirect taxes which are paid by >rich and poor alike regardless of their means and which therefore >disproportionately punish the poor. > > He is right to cut the costs of haulage because these costs are passed on >the prices of all commodities, including food, clothing and so on that are >transported on our roads. These prices again are paid by rich and poor alike. > > But he does not go far enough in this direction. And if he is serious >about discouraging excessive use of the internal combustion engine both by >individuals and haulage companies, much more must be invested in public >transport to make it pleasant and reliable and to restore the freight rail >network which could remove so many heavy lorrios from our roads. > > The current situation on the railways is a sick joke that will not pass >until they are brought back into public ownership. > > >Fuel tax protests > > But Mr Brown's concessions have predictably been divisive and confusing, >leaving the fuel tax protesters uncertain how to proceed. > > The hauliers and farmers have had some sops to take the heat out of their >campaign. Many farmers are now pre-occupied with flooding. > > Public support for the protests on the level of last September is also >waning under a change of policy in the media and again problems with >flooding which could only be made worse by a petrol shortage. > > The leaders of the hauliers' campaign are insisting that Brown has done >nothing to meet their demands and a proposed protest slow drive by a convoy >of heavy lorries from Jarrow to London is to go ahead. > > >Pensioners still fighting > >The pensioners have welcomed the rise -- leaked in advance -- of �5 a week >on the basic state pension with �8 for couples to make up for the 75 pence >insult awarded last year. > > And the winter fuel allowance has again been raised -- from �150 last year >to �200 this year. > > But much is still means tested. There is to be a new tax credit for >pensioners whose income is under �130 a week. > > The minimum income guarantee is to be linked to earnings, bringing the >minimum rate (basic pension plus income support top-up) to �92.15 for a >single pensioner rising to �100 a week from 2003 and �154 a week for couples. > > But pensioners are not fooled. They know the winter fuel allowance, >generous though it is, can be raised or lowered any year according to the >Chancellor's current whim. > > The minimum income guarantee only helps the very poorest pensioners and is >not paid automatically. It is means tested and pensioners have to claim it, >filling in complex forms and proving they really are poor. > > It also leaves a lot of pensioners just over the threshold of entitlement >still very poor and with virtually no help. Qualifying for income support >is a gateway to other benefits which are denied those who get just a little >bit more from their occupational pensions. > > The Government's refusal to restore the link with average earnings -- >which possibly would not have cost so much as the current package -- >indicates that their long-term objective remains the same. > > That is to allow the value of the basic state pension to fade so they we >are all to be dependent on private and occupational pensions. The value of >these -- linked as they are to the stock market -- are always a gamble. > > And they exclude those who cannot have a consistent employment record -- >full-time mothers and carers, the disabled, those in casual employment and >suchlike. The weak stakeholder pensions offered to people in this position >are next to useless in providing security and dignity in old age. > > But Gordon Brown knows, from the size and anger of the pensioners' >movement, that his long-term aims will have to be postponed a little until >a less canny and more compliant generation of pensioners is around. > > Last Tuesday Westminster overflowed with angry pensioners who had gathered >for a mass rally and to lobby their MPs. They have been piling on this >pressure for a number of years now and Mr Brown has, as a result, been >under a lot of pressure from Labour MPs. > > His biggest mistake was last year's 75 pence insult which galvanised a lot >of pensioners who would not otherwise have protested. > > Now the movement will not be stopped until it does get the link restored. >Even then there is still a lot of campaigning to be done to restore the >value of the basic pension to that of 1979 in relation to >average wages. > > Their rally in Central Hall, Westminster was addressed by Dame Barbara >Castle who told the pensioners: "Let's have a bit of fighting policy shall >we? We are not going to whinge anymore. We are going to demand and we are >going to fight for it." > > The pensioners responded with a standing ovation and later by going from >the hall to the House of Commons and blocking the traffic on the way -- >holding the road outside Parliament at a standstill for over an hour. > > Another speaker at the rally was Tony Booth, former actor and the Prime >Minister's father-in-law. He said he was ashamed of the Labour government's >record on pensions. > > He said: "I am ashamed to say this campaign is necessary. I am ashamed >that we are being forced to fight for our rights, to fight for our dignity, >because there is no dignity in poverty, Gordon Brown." > > Rodney Bickerstaffe, general secretary of the public sector union Unison >told the rally: "We have a very simple message for the Chancellor. >Pensioners deserve a decent basic state pension. A �5 increase may offer a >short-term boost but unless a regular uprating such as the link with >earnings is restored, the basic state pension will continue to wither on >the vine." > > Other measures announced in the budget speech include proposals to >simplify value added tax for small businesses. > > New research and development tax credits are aimed to help manufacturing >industry. > > There will be an extension of the 10 pence rate on capital gains tax which >will help capitalists. > > Mr Brown also indicated new measures to help the disabled and their carers. > > And he promised families the lowest direct tax burden in 30 years -- >implying that he will be getting more of his income from indirect tax >burdens Like VAT. Once again the rich are laughing while the poor will end >up paying more. > > Many of the measures in the budget are based on the assumption that >current benefit savings from the reduction in numbers who are claiming >unemployment benefit will continue. > > ********************** > >3) Feature article > >Midwifes face 16-hour shifts. > >by Caroline Colebrook > >A CORONER last week dedared he was "horrified and astounded" to learn that >a midwife was working a 16-hour shift when she assisted at the birth of a >baby who died after 35 minutes. > > Baby Thomas Harris died at Birmingham Heartlands hospital in August 1998 >from lack of oxygen. Coroner Dr Richard Whittington recorded death by >natural causes aggravated by neglect. > > The midwife who delivered him had already worked 11 hours and went on to >complete a 16 hour shift. > > Dr Whittington said: "The extraordinarily long hours being worked by >midwives at any one time causes me considerable concern. > > "Isn't it true that every midwife has two lives to concern her -- the baby >and the mother? Should we be submitted to the care of people that are >shattered after a 16-hour shift? Is this right? > > "if you were on an aircraft, would you want the pilot of your plane to >have been working for 12 hours or more non-stop?" He called for a review >of procedures and was backed by the Royal College of Midwives. The college >said its 38,000 members were often required to work double shifts because >of staff shortages. This leads to exhaustion and demoralisation. > > The RCM director of employment relations, Jon Skews, said the service in >England needs at least 5,000 more midwives. > > He warned that the staff shortages are affecting NHS trusts' ability to >provide one-to-one care for women in labour. This increases the need for >caesarean section deliveries and other medical interventions. > > The proportion of births that are by caesarean has increased sharply in >recent years. > > An RCM spokesperson said: "Midwives throughout the country work under >extreme pressures. They work long shifts followed by night shifts for very >little money. > > "If you want to bring back the staff who have left the service because >they are fed up with the NHS then better working conditions are a must." > > The RCM claims that around 10,000 qualified midwives who have left the >service could be attracted back with better pay, proper on-call allowance, >flexible shift patterns, a better career structure and continuing >professional development. > > * Mothers in South Wales are organising to defend the general practitioner >specialist service at the Brecon Community Service Hospital because its >closure will deprive them of their right to choose where their babies are >born and leaves them with a 21 mile journey to the nearest maternity unit. > > One young mother of two, who is expecting another soon, said: "The unit >offered an excellent holistic service and we want to see it reinstated. > > "The reason I feel so strongly is that my first experience of childbirth >was quite horrific, then my second child was born at Brecon and the service >was second to none." > > The Government last week signed a deal to recruit up to 5,000 nurses from >Spain to meet the shortage crisis in hospitals in Britain this coming winter. > > Health Secretary Alan Milburn announced that the first 75 nurses are due >to arrive in January to take up two-year contacts with NHS trusts in the >north-west of England. > > ************************* > >4) International story > >Israel goes to war. > >by Our Middle East correspondent > >ISRAELI troops and armed gangs of Zionist settler fanatics are rampaging >through the occupied territories in a desperate attempt to curb the >Palestinian uprising now in its sixth week. > > This Wednesday six more Palestinian Arabs were killed -- gunned down by >Israeli soldiers and one Israeli woman customs officer was shot dead and >another wounded when Palestinian guerrillas attacked their post near the >Egypt-Gaza check-point. > > The death-toll since the fighting began now stands at 197 - 166 >Palestinians under occupation, 13 Israeli Arabs (Palestinians who are >theoretically full Israeli citizens) and 18 Israelis. > > But against all odds the Palestinians are fighting back. Last week a car >bomb rocked occupied Jerusalem killing two Israelis and wounding many more. >One of those killed was the daughter of Yitzhak Levy, the leader of >National Religious Party which represents the Arab hating Zionist settlers. > > On Sunday some senior Israeli officers, including the Chief of the General >Staff Shaul Mofaz, were attacked by Palestinian guerrillas while inspecting >a Zionist settlement near Tulkarm, 60 km north-east of Jerusalem. None of >the Israelis were wounded in the attack. > > Armed Zionist settler gangs acting with the approval of the Israeli army >have been spreading their own brand of terror. At least ten Palestinian >farmers have been lynched or murdered in cold blood by these thugs, who are >now using taped Arab distress calls to try and lure Palestinians to their >deaths. > > One typical trick has been to use the voice of an Arab girl crying for >help -- a tactic first used during the anti-Arab pogroms in 1948 when the >Zionist entity was first set up. Voice of Palestine radio warns "Those >murderers and cut-throats are luring you to death... so be careful". > > Other settlers have fled to safety in Israel proper though the overall >settlement programme is continuing despite Tel Aviv's claims that it wants >a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. > > The Israeli Peace Now movement has pointed out that 300 million dollars >has been budgeted for Zionist settlements in occupied Palestine for 2001. > > Peace Now leader Galia Golan warned "It is becoming increasing clear that >regarding the settlements, the present government is continuing the >priorities of the previous Netanyahu government". > > Galia said that Israeli premier Ehud Barak had failed to carry out "the >basic steps essential for an agreement with the Palestinians" and added >"... there is no question that the expansion of settlement activity was one >of the central elements in Israel's failure to create a minimum credibility >in the eyes of the Palestinians, and, as such, a central reason for the >grass-roots frustration with the peace process that is fuelling the current >conflagration". > > Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is calling for the despatch of UN troops >to end the fighting in occupied Palestine -- a view bitterly opposed by Tel >Aviv and Washington. But Barak's left-wing allies in the Meretz Party have >come out in favour of an international peace-keeping force, providing it >did not apply to occupied Jerusalem. > > US diplomatic efforts are once again focusing on trying to get Arafat and >Barak together for talks in America to once again try and brow-beat the >Palestinian leader into accepting surrender terms. And as a sop to the >mounting anger which is spreading across the Arab world the United States >has agreed to set up an international commission of inquiry into the >violence headed by former US senator and northern Ireland mediator, George >Mitchell. > > This was a demand made by the Palestinians from the very beginning. >Whether it will be enough to end the violence now after nearly two hundred >Arab deaths and thousands more wounded remains to be seen. > > ********************* > >5) British news item > >Hackney people rally against massive cuts. > >THE PEOPLE of the London Borough of Hackney last Monday gathered in a mass >rally outside the town hall to protest against cuts to services and jobs in >the wake of the borough's financial crisis. > > Public sector trade unions joined together to fight the �20 million >proposed cuts which are presented by the local authority as the only >solution to its bankruptcv. > > The cuts are supported by Labour and Tory councillors but riot police had >to be called out to protect them as they made their way into the town hall >on Monday to vote on the measures. Currently the borough is in a state of >anarchy and unable to pay its workers and with a �40 million deficit. >Already some areas of the borough have gone without rubbish collection for >two weeks. > > Liberal Democrat councillor Mark Williams described the measures as a >"slash and burn" approach. "We are turning on our workforce," he said, "the >very people we rely on." > > The cuts could put 5400 out of their jobs, including social services >staff, rubbish collectors and nursery teachers. > > Green Party councillor Chit Chong said: "Hackney is undergoing open heart >surgery. The blood is pumping out but there's no connection to the blood >bank. We need money and the only place is the Government." > > A joint committee of trade unions, in a press conference, warned that mass >industrial action would be inevitable if the cuts went ahead. > > The unions involved include public sector union Unsion, the Transport and >General Workers' Union, constructionunion Ucatt, general union MSF, the >National Union of Teachers and engineering union AEEU. > > Local NUT branch secretary Mark Lushington said: "It stretches credulity >to believe that the councillors who got us into this mess are the ones who >can get us out of it. > >"They are merely the latest in a long line of incompetent, bickering >councillors." > > The borough has had a long history of bad administration under different >party domination. > > But the root cause of the problem is decades of serious Government >underfunding to one of the most deprived areas in Europe where problems >have multiplied because of lack of cash to resolve them at an early stage. > > Local people have already discovered that changing the political colour of >the council does not solve the deep problems caused by long-term neglect. >The Government must step in and give financial help to prevent further >disaster and chaos. > > ********************* > > >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 _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
