Political games
May 26, 2009
David Cameron has climbed aboard a bandwagon of amazing size and speed, which sadly lacks any sense of direction. The fact that taxpayers paid for trimming his wisteria seems to have been forgotten by the media, which now routinely denounces all elected politicians as being self-serving greedy crooks and is promoting a programme of anti-politics as the way forward.
Indeed, the whole of the BBC Panorama programme on Monday night was devoted to the fictitious fiddling of a fictitious MP - at no time did it attempt to discuss our Parliament’s lack of power or the need for a stronger democracy.
In large measure, Parliament has brought this ridicule upon itself. Changes are happening very fast, and not before time.
But on the back of the outrage there is a new agenda creeping in. This agenda is essentially very right-wing, seeking to reduce the power of elections and therefore of councillors, MPs and MEPs. It is beginning to sound like Newt Gingrich, who pushed for the end of “big government” in the US.
That process brought us bank deregulation, record levels of poverty and an enormous gap between the rich and the poor both within the US and between the richest and poorest nations.
Cameron proposes much the same. In effect, he is advocating a return to the inglorious Thatcher and Major years, when local government in the poorest areas was starved of central funds and was forced into cuts and redundancies.
In raising the issue of prime ministerial power and the effectiveness of Parliament, Cameron did a hit a vital nerve.
I doubt that if he ever became prime minister he would really relinquish the enormous power of personal patronage that goes with the office or that his government would really want to lose control of the parliamentary process.
The issue is not the number of MPs but what powers they have and how they behave politically.
From its foundation, the Labour Party had a tense relationship between the democracy and accountability of the labour movement and the behaviour of the parliamentary party, which adopted its own rules and programme.
Tony Blair and new Labour solved this conundrum by handing control over the whole party to the leadership and parliamentary party.
This was an act of centralisation that parallels the centralised state that we live in.
As the expenses debate begins to move beyond personalities and headlines, the left must be more engaged.
We need Parliament to be accountable and that comes from ending the prime minister’s power to use the royal prerogative, with MPs deciding on the legislative programme and being able to represent and communicate with their constituencies.
Any process of electoral reform must retain the MP-constituency link.
It would also be therapeutic for MPs to leave the gold chandeliers behind and meet people who are facing the loss of their jobs and homes.
<h3>Uni in funding crisis</h3>
London Metropolitan University, with its sprawling buildings on the Holloway Road and around Whitechapel, is a world away from the trimmed lawns and boat houses of Oxbridge. Its student body is almost as big a contrast too.
It has an enormous number of students who are adults who underachieved at school. Many are from non-university educated families and ethnic minorities.
The London Met has given university opportunities to thousands who would otherwise be denied them.
It boasts an impressive array of courses, from silversmithing to Cuban studies and from working life to Irish history, as well as cutting-edge research in aerospace and technology. It is not elitist, just effective.
But it is in the depths of a funding crisis which is being anxiously observed by all such similar institutions, as job losses and course closures loom ever closer.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) audited the university’s student numbers and module completions and decided that it had been overpaid by more than £30 million. Its annual allocation is now to be reduced by about £10 million.
In effect, the university will have about a third fewer headline student places and 550 jobs will be lost.
In response to the crisis and staff calls for an inquiry into how it came about, university vice-chancellor Brian Roper has resigned.
His full pay on “gardening leave” for another six months contrasts sharply with the students who are desperate to know if they will have a course to go back to in September or the hundreds of staff who fear that redundancy is around the corner.
A debate in Parliament last week saw MPs from all parties call for an independent investigation, plus funding to maintain student places and protect employment.
Universities Minister David Lammy stuck to the mantra that the government cannot interfere with HEFCE decision-making but that there should be an independent inquiry.
Subsequent noises from the oddly named Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills seemed to suggest the inquiry would be conducted by the National Audit Office as part of a wider probe and that the HEFCE would report on the university.
A magnificent march of university workers, civil servants and post office workers along the Holloway Road last Saturday showed how much they all value education and opportunities.
The murky world of university finance and property dealing must not override the need to protect the newer universities from funding cuts, which would destroy the opportunities of a whole generation of would-be students.
<h3>UN secretary general visits war-ravaged Sri Lanka</h3>
To his credit, United Nations secretary general Ban Ki Moon went to Sri Lanka and saw for himself the devastation and misery of the refugee camps.
At the end of his visit there was a carefully worded joint statement with President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
They acknowledged the need for relief, an end to the camps and reconstruction and made noises about reintegration and human rights law.
They deftly skirted around the issue of potential war crimes and use of illegal weapons.
No sooner was the secretary general on his way back to New York than the president rejected the political path adopted by the the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam following Velupillai Prabhakaran’s death and went on to say that the army’s work was not finished.
The war has cost tens of thousands of lives over the past 25 years. Without respecting Tamil identity and rights or addressing their grievances, the horrors could return.
Having rejected all calls for ceasefire and now, apparently, for dialogue, the case for international humanitarian law becomes stronger.
Outside Parliament, the Tamil protests continue. Quite rightly they are demanding that international monitors observe and report back from Sri Lanka, that aid is delivered and that those detained in the “camps” be released.
<h3>Gill was an inspiration</h3>
Ken Gill was a great man in every way. He was not just a huge influence in the engineering unions in the 1970s and right up to his retirement but afterwards as well.
Gill was always there at demonstrations, rallies and meetings for Cuba, Venezuela or anyone trying to make life better for the majority.
I don’t suppose he was ever offered a peerage, but he used his retirement even better to support left causes and inspire others. My sympathies are with his family. Gill offered for all of us a lesson on how to keep faith.
Adjournment debate on London Metropolitan University
May 20, 2009
Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the London Metropolitan university. It is with great pride that I speak in support of the university and its students and staff, but I am greatly concerned about what is happening and the institution’s future.
The London Metropolitan is a new university, in the sense that it is a conglomeration of former universities - London Guildhall university and the university of North London - and former polytechnics. Most of its buildings are in my constituency, in Holloway road in north London, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). However, a considerable number of buildings are to be found in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway). Unfortunately, he cannot be here today, but he has done a great deal of work to support the students and staff in his constituency.
The London Metropolitan university is unusual in that it has a large student body. Most are not traditional university students - that is school leavers or post-gap year students. Its students tend to be much older, their backgrounds tend to be much poorer and their previous educational achievements tend to be considerably less than those in other universities.
The university is a model of access to higher education for people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds, so it is exactly the kind of institution that the Government, in their many statements on widening access to higher education, have strongly promoted and supported. We should recognise that fact when considering the crisis through which the university is going and, above all, how we are to get out of that crisis. I hope the Minister will give me some good news about the likelihood of Government intervention to assist us out of this crisis.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate, and I entirely agree with him. He will be aware that some of my constituents are involved in the university, either as students or as staff. I see no reason why they should suffer because a number of administrators have made errors over the years, and I hope that the Government will ensure that they do not.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with thrust of what he says, and I shall return to that subject in a moment. I shall put things in context by citing figures on widening participation. The latest figures show that 97.3 per cent. of LMU students come from state schools or colleges and that 42.9 per cent. come from lower socio-economic groups. Across the UK, 21.5 per cent. of students in higher education institutions are mature students, but at the LMU the figure is 51.9 per cent. Of the 4,050 full-time undergraduate entrants to the LMU in 2006-07, 52.6 per cent - more than 2,000 - were mature students. In addition, there are 3,565 part-time students - the LMU ranks 18th in the UK on that statistic. In 2009-10, the LMU will receive £5.5 million for its widening participation activities, the funding being based on the number of students deemed to be the widening participation category, for which the LMU ranks 19th in the UK. The university also helps students with particular problems. We should recognise all those facts in our debate. I shall come to the background to the problem in a moment, but first I want hon. Members to understand the context in which students study at the London Metropolitan. My constituency has a combination of housing types. Some 31 per cent. is owner-occupied housing, while 70 per cent. is council or private rented accommodation. Many people earn well below the average income, but they do their best to struggle by. I have met many who have had the opportunity to study at the London Met, including single parents with large families living in difficult housing and experiencing all that goes with that. They found the university helpful and supportive, and it was able to assist them to get through their courses.
Post-school students living in nice halls of residence in Oxford have their own rooms, their own support system and enough money. I do not begrudge that, but those students are doing pretty well. By and large, London Met students live at home and do not have such facilities or support - for them, studying is much harder. The students’ completion rate, and the possibility of them dropping out or wanting longer to complete their courses, is a matter that comes up all the time. I want the Minister and hon. Members fully to understand the London Met’s accounting procedure.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I appreciate the background of students at London Metropolitan university - many come from my constituency. However, I suspect that the reason for the drop-out rates does not lie entirely with the students’ social background. We must also consider what the university offers.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. I am not trying to apportion everything, but I want hon. Members to understand the context in which many students are studying. I shall deal with the accounting procedure in a moment.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about the benefits given to disadvantaged youngsters by the London Metropolitan university. Perhaps one should recognise that dropping out is not necessarily a huge negative; reaching a certain stage of education is a great advance on not having started.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): They can go back.
Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) pointed out, there is also the possibility of going back at a later stage or even going on to another institution. Such matters should be taken on board by the Higher Education Funding Council and as part of the Government’s assessment of the performance of educational establishments. I shall give an example of the way in which many students value the institution. I quote from a letter, although I shall not name the individual as it would be invidious.
It states:
“I work part time and would not be able to flourish in the same way without this particular course at this particular university. There weren’t any other options for someone like me, who is a bit older than the average graduate, and returning to further education. This course and in fact all the other courses available at the university are like a jewel in a whole ocean of courses and colleges. This place allows access to education for people from all walks of life who would not normally be able to get a place in education at this level.” It is worth remembering that.
Mr. Mark Field: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he asserts in relation to London Metropolitan university - I entirely agree with him - also applies to a number of the other new universities and colleges created since 1992, many of which are within a short distance of central London?
Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, it applies to other universities and colleges, but the extent of cuts proposed for the London Metropolitan and the loss of student places does not apply to others. The Met is in a class of its own, given the financial problems that it faces, and that is why I am pleased to have secured this special debate.
Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that teaching in universities these days has an international aspect? The university’s institute for Cuban studies, a subject that is interesting in itself, attracts attention from students across the world, who go there to talk about what is happening in the Caribbean and other parts of the world. More and more universities in this country depend on international contacts and on students from overseas paying astronomical fees. It seems to me that the London Met has started something by looking at poorer countries with poorer students. It is making relationships across the world, and that is worth a five-star rating.
Jeremy Corbyn: The university has been innovative through many of its special sections, departments and courses. The institute for Cuban studies is a good example, as is the working lives research institute. The university should be congratulated on and praised for establishing courses on such subjects as sustainable tourism. My concern, however, is about the problems faced by the university. The HEFC has a duty and obligation to count the number of students in colleges, and module and course completions. Essentially, the funding of the rest of the university’s life is based on those figures. When an audit was undertaken by the HEFC, it concluded that student numbers and completions had been over-counted. As a result, huge cuts have been made to the university’s budget for future years and there has been a request for repayment. We are talking about very large sums: £38 million is to be repaid, and about £10 million a year will be cut from the university’s funding indefinitely. As a result, 550 full-time equivalent jobs - that probably adds up to 800 people, because many staff are part-time - will go. In addition, many jobs for hourly-paid lecturing staff and others on short-term contracts will be lost, although the number is unquantified. Student numbers will fall by about a third, so 5,000 student places will be lost if this financial package goes through. That would be devastating for any institution.
I have two questions for the Minister in this part of my contribution. First, does the HEFC’s counting process take sufficient account of the difficulties faced by some students, especially those from poorer backgrounds, those living in difficult housing conditions and those facing other related issues? As the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) pointed out, such people do not necessarily complete the whole course, but they might well use the modules that they do complete to gain a place somewhere else or to better themselves in some other way. I get the feeling that a degree of punishment might be involved for those students and types of completions. Secondly, on a difficult and more delicate area, what happened within the university to allow this systematic approach to reporting to lead to such a devastating consequence for the university itself? Apparently the figures became known to the vice-chancellor and the university’s governing body some time last year. In December, the governing body discussed redundancies but, bizarrely, the unions were not informed of the possible redundancies until two months later. A question mark therefore hangs over the management style of the former vice-chancellor and the flow of information. May we please have an independent inquiry to which unions, staff and many others can give evidence so that we can establish the truth?
The vice-chancellor subsequently tendered his resignation, but he will remain on the university’s payroll for a further six months. He therefore remains an employee of the university, albeit not in office, while a further vice-chancellor has been appointed.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend communicate to the Chamber what the vice-chancellor’s salary might be - vice-chancellors are known to be shelling it in?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not know what Brian Roper’s salary is. I believe that the figure is known, but all I know is that it has many noughts after the first figure - I think that there are at least six digits. Others might be able to help.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend might wish to know that, as I understand it, Mr. Roper’s salary is in the vicinity of £150,000, although I do not care to speculate about his expenses.
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not want this debate to turn into speculation about Brian Roper’s salary.
Ms Abbott: Why not?
Jeremy Corbyn: Because, although it is important and interesting, I am far more concerned about the loss of 550 jobs and 5,000 students potentially losing the opportunity for a university education.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Last week, I attempted to bring together both sides in my office to try to figure out whether there was any common ground. Sadly, the managers refused to meet the others, so we had to have two separate meetings, which did not actually work. The point was made that we must consider not only the numbers, which he is quite right to put to the Minister, but another issue: the university has some specialities that are almost unique to it, such as cabinet-making. The only other university in the UK that offers such a course is Buckingham, which is a private university, and the people we are talking about are not the kind who will go there to get these skills. This is not just about the raw numbers, but about what happens when those numbers fall. When that happens, some of these specialities will simply disappear, which will be a major loss.
Jeremy Corbyn: That is a very fair point. Clearly, a relatively small but specialised department, such as the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, cannot be reduced by one third. Either it gets closed down altogether, or it is funded properly. Some departments must either be funded properly or not be there at all, because otherwise the situation is simply not viable. This degree of cuts calls into question the viability of many courses and, indeed, much of the university itself. I am interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman attempted to meet people from the university. When I first heard about these problems, I contacted the university and the two major unions involved - Unison and the University and College Union. I discussed with the unions their concerns, the problems that their members face and all the rest of it. I asked repeatedly for meetings with the vice-chancellor and the board of governors. One of the meetings was cancelled almost an hour before it was due to be held, and that is just one chapter in a series of such events. Only after I had met the HEFC, together with representatives of Unison and the UCU, did the university get back in touch and ask for a meeting to discuss the situation. It was concerned that I had gone to the HEFC without discussing it with the university first. Well, I am sorry, but I am the Member of Parliament for the area and, like all hon. Members - we all have constituents - I must go wherever I can go to get answers to my problems. However, the vice-chancellor has now resigned and a new one has been appointed.
Mr. Rob Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Due to my former job as shadow Minister for higher education, I have been following this matter for some time. Perhaps he can help with something that has been puzzling me. Why does he believe that Government figures show that, in 2005-06 and 2006-07, the LMU reported non-completion rates of between 2 and 4 per cent., when it would be expected that such a university would report figures closer to 30 per cent? Why did the university get it so wrong? Why did the HEFC not pick it up much earlier?
Jeremy Corbyn: That is a very interesting question - I am looking for the answer myself. It has been reported in the Times Higher Education. I had raised in this House the question of the very high drop-out and non-completion rate from that university, and suddenly it fell to a very low figure. I hope that the Minister will answer that question. If not, I hope that the university or the HEFC can provide some answers. The questions that we are asking - I am not speaking from a particularly partisan point of view - all point to the need for a proper inquiry into what went wrong. Above all, we need to try to get through this crisis so that we see not the decline of the institution, but its sustainability and development. It is important that I make the point that I have not come here to bury the LMU any more than anybody else in the Chamber.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not say a great deal more. I would like the Minister to understand the degree of anger and concern locally and within the teaching and student bodies. I hope that the new vice-chancellor, Mr. Alfred Morris, who just left the university of Lampeter and was previously at the university of the West of England - he has a reputation of dealing with places in trouble - understands the importance of taking staff into his confidence, of working with them to get around the problems, and of not heading solely down the road of redundancies. He should also be absolutely clear about the finances involved.
As I understand it, the HEFC has loaned £38 million to the university to help it through this particular crisis, and it is prepared to negotiate the repayment time. The predictions of the university’s future financial problems are exaggerated in the extreme, which leads the board in one direction only - that of immediate redundancies. The board has advertised for voluntary redundancies, but did not get full take-up. If it persists with this financial strategy, we will be looking at compulsory redundancies. A day of strike action has already been called by the UCU and there might well be others. A demonstration is planned this weekend in the Holloway road in support of the university and its staff. I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling around this issue and take the following action. First, he must set up an inquiry into what has happened at the university. Secondly, he must provide us with all information on the funding that has already been given to the university, and on the current arrangements that have been offered by the HEFC. He must be prepared, if necessary, to intervene on this matter.
I was grateful that the Minister replied to my parliamentary question but, with the greatest respect, sympathy is not enough. The HEFC is funded wholly by the Government. We expect it to act on behalf of Government policy, and we expect Ministers to intervene when necessary to protect jobs, courses and students. Neither those who are threatened with losing their jobs nor those who will be unable to go to university in the future are responsible for the auditing, the funding, or the accounting arrangements, and I do not see why they should be punished.
Dr. Gibson: I guess my hon. Friend may be able to help me in this matter. The head of the HEFC is now moving to another university vice-chancellor’s job somewhere in the Midlands. Does he think that there could be a problem arising from the fact that that organisation has gone solid at the base?
Jeremy Corbyn: Not at all. Some weeks ago, I had a very useful meeting with Professor David Eastwood, the former chief executive of the HEFC, and both the unions. The professor has now gone to be vice-chancellor of the university of Birmingham and his successor has been appointed. I and a number of colleagues are meeting them in the House on Friday afternoon to continue the dialogue. I want the Minister to tell me that the Government understand our feelings. I want him to say how wrong it is to punish staff and students for the misdemeanours of others. We want an open public inquiry and, above all, we want action to defend the London Metropolitan university. Such institutions are the gateway to education for many people who, for so long, have been denied access to university-standard education. At a time of crisis and recession, people turn to such institutions for opportunities to expand their lives and their education. Can we show some support, sympathy and understanding of the fact that it is those who caused this crisis who should be punished for it? Those who did not cause the crisis should not have to pay the price for the misdemeanours of others. We need this university and this opportunity, and I look to the Minister for assistance in his reply.
…
Jeremy Corbyn: May I bring the Minister back to the redundancies and the financial model under which the university is working? It is funded enormously from the public purse, as are most universities, and it is pursuing a redundancy strategy that does not appear to be necessary in terms of its current financial difficulties. Many people from the university are concerned, as am I, that an excessive number of redundancies are being planned, and that there is an attempt to restructure without any real understanding of the need to maintain courses and staff and student numbers. I understand what the Minister has said about the autonomy of universities, but they are not autonomous; they are funded by the public. His job, as the Minister, is to take care of the public purse and ensure that moneys spent on higher education are spent appropriately.
Mr. Lammy: I take seriously the prospect of redundancies and the worrying risks that they place on people. It is probably premature to reach a conclusion on that issue, particularly given that the new leadership of the institution has come into place only recently. The university has not yet made a bid for strategic development funding, which will be important to how it reshapes and restructures its courses. Even at the best of times, losing one’s job is a serious business for anybody, and I recognise what many lecturers have done over many years at that institution. I cannot guarantee their jobs, but I can promise that any person who is made redundant from London Met will have access to a full package of support for the unemployed, including training support, as one would expect the Government to make available. I also assure hon. Members that all London Met students who are currently enrolled will be able to complete their studies in the normal way. London Met has made no applications to the funding council for emergency support for students, but I hope and expect that any such request would be considered sympathetically. That summarises where we have got to with the institution. The university has announced only recently the appointment of Alfred Morris, a vice-chancellor with tremendous experience of turning around institutions. It is for him to begin to determine the future of London Met.
The dangers of anti-politics
May 19, 2009
Monday was one of those surreal days that happen at Westminster.
Parliament Square and the streets around were blockaded for most of the day by Tamil people, desperately worried about families and loved ones in Vanni as news of the Sri Lankan army’s final push came through. Later, as news of Velupillai Prabhakaran’s death was reported, the crowds became bigger and more angry.
Last Saturday, a march in Birmingham asked for government action to protect jobs and save companies in the recession. Another march in London expressed support for the Palestinian people and demanded a new policy towards Israel. Parliament, on the other hand, was discussing MPs’ expenses, or, more prosaically, the additional costs allowance.
The long-drawn-out saga of MPs’ battle to get out of having to disclose their expense claims in response to a request issued under the Freedom of Information Act finally ended with agreement to publish all the details… in July.
The Daily Telegraph jumped the gun, having apparently bought the information from a stolen disk, and has been publishing ever since. Non-London MPs have been able to claim up to £23,000 per year and the effects have been dramatic in media and political terms. Obviously, those who make fraudulent claims should suffer the consequences and equally obviously the system needs a big change. Michael Martin as Speaker vainly tried to make an appropriate statement on Monday but, if anything, only managed to make the situation worse.
This is one of the few issues relating to Parliament that has sustained the interest of both the “heavy” papers and the tabloids at the same time and consequently has filled the airwaves of chat shows and dominated most political programmes. But what initially emerged as an understandable anger and revulsion at individual examples of excessive claims has now become, first, a contest between the party leaders - in which Cameron has had the easiest ride - and, second, an attack on politics as a whole. In the failure of MPs to get to grips with public feeling, a space has been created for other forces.
These are not progressive forces but the harbingers of desperation and doubt.
Thus UKIP has apparently gained much ground ahead of the European elections and the BNP is already making hay. Strange, as one of UKIP’s MEPs has spent most of the time since his election in prison for fraud, while the BNP’s racist policies and the record of its candidates go unchallenged in most of the media.
We now have an openly right-wing agenda designed to ignore the issues of the recession, the massive bail-out of the banks and the bonuses paid to directors, and which focuses only on attacking democracy.
Unless Labour can get to grips with this and provide a viable alternative, the ground is open for a Conservative government and a frightening rise in intolerance and the far right.
But this anti-democratic atmosphere has its antecedents in the 1980s and the rise of new Labour. Essentially, the economic strategies of Reagan and Thatcher came down to money being everything - how it was made was irrelevant. Thus asset stripping, tax cutting, privatisation of public services and impoverishment of the poorest became articles of faith. New Labour under Blair sought to accommodate these attitudes and, while they did invest in public service improvements, they also went even further in deregulating financial services and threatened - and carried out - privatisation of public services. At no stage did new Labour ever challenge the notion that public services run by publicly employed people are intrinsicially better than private services run for profit by unaccountable companies. New Labour also demonstrated an attitude to welfare and means testing that has no place in socialist thinking at all.
These attitudes did not stop at government policy. They were the product of a wider agenda. The whole new Labour project was to weaken and ultimately destroy the link between trade unions and the Labour Party and to ensure that its funding came from the wealthy and influential, who gradually became the main source of income.
This has led to a loss of party members, a reduction in activity and a whole movement vulnerable to the anti-politics debate through disillusionment. A weak and unfocused Labour movement at a time of recession is the perfect breeding ground for the far right.
The saga of the Speaker, the expenses, the claims and the ridicule will be played out in the next few weeks and we may even end up with a more accountable system and openness as a result. The damage, however, will extend to the very idea of representative democracy.
Unless the labour movement can deliver protection of the poorest in the recession, permanent control of the banks and the banking system and provision of homes, jobs and opportunities, then we leave ourselves vulnerable to the far right.
Essentially the BNP and UKIP are the same thing. The BNP has all the accoutrements of a fascist party - UKIP are much the same but with blazers and more refined accents.
Their message is one of despair and division, blaming the poorest and most vulnerable migrant workers for the economic failures of a system built on greed and exploitation.
Opposing the BNP means campaigning for high electoral participation to minimise their influence and adopting policies of substance for those most affected by the recession.
Parliament must urgently get its house in order and be seen to be of relevance. The alternative is a return to naked monetarism and its enforcement by fear and bigotry.
<h3>Government ‘win’ leaves Tamils at risk</h3>
The end of fighting in Sri Lanka will mean a unitary state for the good of all Sri Lankans, or so the president claimed in his “victory” address on Monday night.
With no media presence, no observers and not even UN satellite pictures being taken, we can only speculate what the conditions are like in the enforced camps that the Tamil people have been herded into. The continued refusal of the Sri Lankan government to allow aid agencies in has made the situation more ominous.
There is a danger that in the wake of this perceived “victory,” the Sri Lanka government will engage in wholesale population moves. Having ignored calls for a ceasefire and negotiations based on recognising Tamil wishes and rights, the world must now insist on war-crimes investigations. The desperate Tamil people who blockaded Parliament Square on Monday need to be listened to.
Man of hate
May 12, 2009
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is due to visit Britain today. This man, who spent the recent Israeli election trying to surpass Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak in the xenophobia and anti-Arab stakes, has now turned his attention to Iran.
Quite why he is being entertained by the British government when he could be more usefully engaged assisting investigators preparing a case for the International Criminal Court is a bit of a mystery. The bombing of Gaza earlier this year and the continued occupation of the West Bank are both illegal. In the case of Gaza, investigations into the use of illegal weapons such as white phosphorus and the bombing of civilian targets could well judge them as war crimes. Lieberman hasn’t even pretended to be interested in peace. He rejects the Annapolis agreements signed by previous Israeli governments, refuses to contemplate any Palestinian state and is now calling for war with Iran. He has apparently also called for the execution of elected members of the Knesset if they have any contact with Hamas and, for good measure, he wants Palestinians who live within Israel expelled.
Only three months ago the world watched aghast as images of Israeli planes and tanks pounding Gaza took over their TV screens. Plaintive calls for a ceasefire from a series of governments were treated with indifference by Israel. Its government was embroiled in a macabre election dance at the time, comfortable in the knowledge that US financial support and military aid would continue and that Europe would do no more than suspend Israel’s application for associate status.
The European Union-Israel trade agreement remains in place. At the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review meeting in New York last week there was a lot of debate about nuclear-free zones. They already exist in Africa, Antarctica, much of the Pacific, Latin America and central Asia. The addition of a Middle East nuclear-free zone would be a massive advance. The trouble is that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has at least 200 nuclear warheads and the capacity to deliver them.
In her speech to the New York conference, US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller delivered an optimistic message from President Barack Obama and then went on to call for Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to sign the NPT.
They could only do so by unilaterally disarming - the treaty allows only those nations that possessed nuclear weapons in 1970 to retain them.
The US has promoted strong sanctions against North Korea. It was initially opposed to India and Pakistan gaining nuclear weapons, but later rewarded India with new technology. But it has taken no measures of any sort against Israel despite promoting the most draconian sanctions against Iran - an NPT signatory that is operating within the remit of the treaty.
The key to regional peace and stability will come not from appeasing Israel’s voracious appetite for land, weapons and wars, but from taking a serious approach that places sanctions against Israel for its illegal occupation, flouting of UN resolutions and abuse of human rights.
Palestinians in Gaza live in an open prison with insufficient water, fuel, medicine or food. Elected parliamentarians are in prison without charge, tens of thousands are homeless from the bombing and the wall continues to divide West Bank Palestinians from their crops or their freedom to move around their own country.
Demonstrations took place around the world during the intense period of the Gaza bombing. The hundreds of thousands who marched in London and other cities or attended local meetings across the globe made a big difference.
Pictures on satellite channels not only got through to the people of Gaza, but helped to awaken lethargic Western politicians from their Christmas break. They also assisted the Israeli peace and human rights groups which bravely opposed the war.
Israel was left isolated and condemned.
This Saturday May 16, there will be a big demonstration in London organised by Palestine Solidarity Campaign, CND and the Stop the War Coalition. Be there if you can. Vocal support for the rights and lives of Palestinians is more important now than ever. The key to peace in the whole region lies in fair treatment of the Palestinian people.
Saturday’s march assembles in Malet Street, London WC1, at 12pm before heading to a 2.30pm rally in Trafalgar Square. Speakers include Palestinian ambassador Manuel Hasassian, members of the Westminster and European parliaments, Dan Judelson from Jews for Justice for Palestine and comedian Alexei Sayle. Visit www.palestinecampaign.org for more information.
<h3>No more silence</h3>
Parliament Square was blocked all day on Monday by desperate people horrified at the news they were hearing from Sri Lanka.
Despite the best efforts of the Sri Lankan government to deny international observers or journalists access to the war zone, news is emerging of hundreds of deaths as modern weapons and planes strafe Tamil areas.
Desperate refugees have nowhere to go and nowhere to hide.
The wholly understandable decision by the Tamil diaspora to come to Parliament Square to demand peace and a ceasefire did not attract much sympathy among MPs.
Tory Patrick Cormack complained that he had been delayed by the protest. He certainly caught the mood of his colleagues, anxious to escape examination of second homes expenses, when he called for the use of water cannon to clear the square.
It seems that some people think the majesty and emptiness of Parliament Square is preferable to listening to the desperate cries of a people being slaughtered in the latest round of a terrible war.
Yesterday, the UN security council at last met to discuss Sri Lanka. The killing will continue unless the increasingly chauvinistic Sri Lankan government is threatened with serious action and isolation.
A special parliamentary debate is being held to discuss Sri Lanka tomorrow. Unless this is followed by real life-saving action, it will be seen as another empty gesture from a weakened and hollowed-out Parliament.
WPQ on the Western Sahara
May 5, 2009
The text of a written parliamentary question (WPQ).
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is providing to refugees from the Western Sahara in refugee camps in Algeria.
Michael Foster: The Department for International Development (DFID) supports Western Saharan refugees through its 17 per cent. share of the budget of the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and its £19 million core contributions to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), for its work with refugees across the world. In 2008, ECHO committed to provide €10 million to support Western Saharan refugees, while UNHCR spent $3.1 million in their support.
