“Nick Clegg is one of the architects of austerity; he’s a millionaire and lives in a £1m home. The cuts are a political choice of this government and the cabinet of out-of-touch millionaires, they are not necessary.”

By Medhi Hasan

A new poll by YouGov contains some pretty bad news for the austerity junkies.

A YouGov poll out today, and commissioned by the new trade-union-backed thinktank, Class, reveals that the British public strongly favours the anti-austerity policies championed by the new Socialist President of France, Francois Hollande, including:

• establishing a publicly-owned bank that will lend to small and medium businesses (74 per cent strongly support or tend to support)
• introducing a 75 per cent top rate of income tax for those earning over £1 million per year (56 per cent strongly support or tend to support)
• providing more financial support for young people from low income families, so they can better afford to go to college or university (73 per cent strongly support or tend to support)
• a national programme of building 500,000 extra homes a year, including 150,000 new council houses (64 per cent strongly support or tend to support)
• bringing in a new tax on financial transactions by investment banks (61 per cent strongly support or tend to support).

Do you want to know what the new “centre ground” on the economy looks like? Well, this is it.

As Unite’s Steve Hart, the chair of Class, argues over at Left Foot Forward:

“Except on the income tax proposal – the Tories split 42-51% on that – all these policies were backed by supporters of all parties. The proposal for a publically owned bank to lend to small and medium business had the support of 74% of those polled. Even 72% of Tory voters supported it.”

He adds:

“Labour’s tentative proposal for a British Investment Bank must surely now become a strong pledge.”

What on earth are the two Eds waiting for?

From the New Statesman

By Eoin Burke-Kennedy

UNITED LEFT ALLIANCE: A PROMINENT member of Greece’s radical left party Syriza has called on Irish voters “to revolt against austerity” by rejecting next week’s fiscal treaty referendum.

At a press conference in Dublin yesterday, hosted by the United Left Alliance, Despina Charalampidou said Greece was “a living example of the economic disaster” of austerity.

Ms Charalampidou, who was elected to the Greek parliament earlier this month as part of a surge in support for anti-bailout parties, said austerity policies were destroying her country and the living standards of low- and middle-income workers across the continent.

“In Greece 50 per cent of hospital beds have been cut, 50 per cent of young people are unemployed.

“We are seeing more suicide, homelessness and even malnutrition.”

She said if the Irish people vote No on May 31st they would not be alone as there was a revolt against austerity going on right across Europe.

Asked if she thought Greece would leave the euro zone, Ms Charalampidou said: “We don’t want to leave the euro. We like the European Union, it is our home.”

However, she said her party wanted a Europe based on equality and justice, and stood against the current policy agenda being imposed on other countries by Germany.

At the conference Socialist MEP Paul Murphy said the pro-treaty side was “outrageously attempting” to use what was happening in Greece to scare people into voting Yes.

This was incredible, he said, as Greece was the first country to ratify the stability treaty and “look at the stability that has resulted”.

“What’s happened in Greece is a product not of left-wing policies being implemented … but a consequence of austerity heaped upon austerity, and two memoranda with the troika which have devastated society.”

He also questioned Government assurances that EU leaders agreed there would be no changes to the text of the fiscal treaty at the summit in Brussels on Wednesday.

“If you read the press lines that were released about the council meeting there is no reference to the treaty.”

He also said such a move would have required “a major climb-down” on the part of French president François Hollande, who has repeatedly stated that the “treaty as is will not be ratified”.

“I think the reality is, and they are trying to hide this from the Irish people, is that this treaty is falling apart all across Europe, and we have an opportunity on the May 31st, literally, to blow it apart.”

From Irish Times

By Seamus Milne

EU elites are trying to scare Greeks and Irish into swallowing austerity, but it’s they who brought the economy to its knees

Alexis Tsipras tells reporters in Paris that the future of Europe and the euro depended on the outcome of the Greece debt crisis. Photograph: Remy De La Mauviniere/AP

Democracy has never been the European Union’s strongest suit. It’s an institution where the unelected and the barely accountable have always called the shots – and electorates are routinely made to vote again if they get the answer wrong in a referendum. So perhaps it’s no surprise that as soon as it became clear the Greeks would be given another say on the austerity programme that has already driven their country into 1930s-style depression, the threats and bullying began in earnest.

The entire European establishment has now lined up to scare Greeks off giving another majority to anti-austerity parties, as they did in explosive elections earlier this month. Europe’s revolt against austerity has to be contained. Democratic niceties about not interfering in other countries’ elections have been ditched. If Greeks vote for parties such as the radical left Syriza – now leading in most opinion polls – they will be voting to leave the euro, Europe’s political elite has warned.

“To remain in the euro,” the unelected EU commission president José Manuel Barroso declared, “Greece must respect its commitments”. By commitments, he meant the package of pulverising privatisations, tax rises and cuts in jobs, pay and services demanded by the EU and IMF in exchange for loans which cannot be repaid and are reducing the country to beggary. Knowing most Greeks both reject death-spiral austerity and want to stay in the euro, Europe’s political class is ratcheting up the fear of forced exit meltdown.

Most preposterous has been the British prime minister David Cameron lecturing Greeks on their responsibilities from outside the eurozone. “You can either vote to stay in the euro, with all the commitments you’ve made,” he declared, “or you’re effectively voting to leave”. Fellow Tory minister Ken Clarke warned the Greeks of “serious consequences” if they voted for “cranky extremists“. This from a government that demands growth from Europe while driving its own economy into a double-dip recession with homegrown austerity.

Meanwhile, the Irish are getting similar treatment, as the country’s elites try to scare voters into backing the EU’s permanent austerity treaty in a referendum later this month. Crucial to the campaign has been the threat that Ireland will be denied future emergency bailout funds for its own shrinking economy if the treaty is rejected. So far, that has kept the yes campaign ahead, even though Sinn Féin has mirrored the European trend by doubling its support to more than 20% on the back of opposition to the country’s failed austerity programme.

But in both cases, the threats are phoney. The legal basis of the treaty clause the Irish government is claiming would cut off future bailout funds is strongly contested and the prospect unrealistic. And Greeks are not voting on whether to stay in or leave the euro next month. They are voting on whether to continue to reject a shock therapy programme that even those demanding its implementation know can only drive Greece deeper into debt and destitution.

There is now a strong likelihood that the country will end up leaving the euro, whichever way it turns – and that may well offer Greece the most realistic chance of eventual recovery. But it’s not what parties such as Syriza are demanding. Instead, its leader Alexis Tsipras has been in Paris and Berlin this week calling for a halt to Greece’s debt repayments, and negotiations with Europe’s leaders on a new deal.

The stronger the vote for anti-austerity parties, the better the chance that those negotiations could produce more than cosmetic results. That’s because the threat of a disorderly Greek default – which could still take place inside the euro – has the potential to trigger a cascade of bank runs and knock-on crises across the eurozone whose impact could dwarf the Lehmans crash of 2008.

Greece is, after all, only the state furthest down the road of collapse. The threat to crippled Spain could already be on a much larger scale. Across the eurozone, the banking system is once again tipping towards breakdown, as self-defeating austerity deepens the crisis.

As one EU commissioner told me yesterday, “this austerity union is simply not sustainable”. Eurozone leaders’ attempt to solve the crisis by “internal devaluation” – cutting wages and services across the southern periphery to restore competitiveness – was a “complete disaster”, he said, that would deliver mass poverty and migration to the north.

But despite hopes that France’s new president François Hollande, now backed by Barack Obama, could shift Europe towards jobs and growth, the concessions potentially on offer from Germany’s Angela Merkel are not remotely on the scale necessary to overcome the growing crisis. That would need a commitment to fullblown eurobond lending to underpin state debts, a Marshall plan-style programme of fiscal transfers and investment in weaker eurozone states, along with recapitalisation and public takeover of European banks.

But Germany’s leaders show no sign of being prepared to foot the bill for the costs of a currency union that has benefited German capital above all but now threatens, like the gold standard in the early 20th century, to bring Europe’s economy to its knees.

But the eurozone’s implosion isn’t only the result of a cockeyed, one-size-fits-all currency structure that was always going to buckle and fracture under pressure. It’s also the product of the wider crisis of neoliberal capitalism that first erupted in the banking system five years ago and has since wreaked havoc on public finances, jobs, services and living standards throughout the western world.

Asked who they held responsible for the Greek crisis at the weekend, 50% of Britons polled rightly blamed the banks, 22% Brussels – and only 4% the Greek people. But the eurozone breakdown is also the product of a generation of EU treaty-enforced privatisation, market deregulation and corporate liberalisation that paved the way for the crisis across Europe, including in Britain.

It’s that inbuilt neoliberal dimension of the EU, central to debates in mainland Europe, that has been missing from the growing political pressure for a referendum on EU membership in Britain – but has played a central role in this crisis. Across the continent, whether in or out of the eurozone, the need for a break with a failed economic model could not be more pressing.

From the Guardian

By Fintan O’toole

YOU GET a call from a solicitor – let’s call her Angela. She summons you to her office. She shows you the penalty clause of a contract, the one that specifies the punishments you’ll face if you break the terms.

She tells you to sign it right now or you’ll be in big trouble. “But,” you ask, “where’s the rest of the contract?” “We’re still working on it. It’s none of your business. Just sign here.”

This is a pretty good analogy for the absurd situation we’re in with the fiscal treaty. The treaty, as practically everyone now acknowledges, is not the new political contract that will get the European Union out of a potentially terminal crisis. It is just the penalty clause. It makes no sense unless and until we know what the deal itself will be. Asking us to sign it before we know what the rest of the contract contains is an act of utter contempt.

In the face of such contempt, the only rational course for the Irish people is to fall back on their considerable resources of evasion, equivocation and circumvention. The hour for our artful dodgery has come at last.

In 1066 And All That, WC Sellar and RJ Yeatman remark that whenever the English thought they had an answer to the Irish question, the Irish would change the question. In the context of Anglo-Irish relations, the joke is rather facetious. But when it comes to Europe, changing the question is actually well-established Irish practice. We’ve done it twice, with the Nice treaty in 2001-2002 and with the Lisbon treaty in 2008-2009.

Given the choice between Yes and No, we’ve voted “No but yeah”: go away, come back to us, ask a somewhat different question, and we’ll say Yes.

These are not among the more glorious episodes in Irish democracy. They epitomise the slitheriness of so much of our political culture. But maybe this is the time to embrace our slithery side. Maybe “No but yeah” is actually a more honest and meaningful response to the insulting absurdity with which we’re faced than any other option we’re being given.

The obvious thing for the Government to have done was to postpone the referendum, because the European crisis makes its meaning utterly fluid. (With its huge majority, it could have pushed through legislation to allow it to do so in a matter of days.) This would not even have been particularly brave.

Not only is France refusing to sign the treaty “as it stands”, but even Germany has had to postpone ratification. The Government, however, is so terrified of deviating one inch from the path of perceived righteousness that it is pressing robotically onwards.

This leaves the electorate in a dilemma. The Yes and No options don’t come close to expressing public opinion. A majority of voters, I would guess, are actually in one of two camps: (a) Yes, because there is no choice; (b) No, but ask us again when you’ve got the growth strategy worked out.

The first of these – we have to do it – is actually not a reason to vote Yes, it’s a reason to spoil one’s vote. If there is no choice, a referendum is a charade. It is a parody of democracy. The only way to salvage some small sense of civic dignity would be a mass spoiling of votes.

The second option is “No, but . . .” It acknowledges there might be a context in which the fiscal treaty actually makes sense.

If, for example, there were a serious commitment to long-term European investment in growth, that would change the Irish budgetary arithmetic quite radically.

So would a proper European banking resolution that would take the massive cost of bailing out banks off the backs of the citizens. But we simply don’t know whether, or to what extent, the re-emergence of the crisis will force such serious changes of strategy.

What makes “No, but . . .” a perfectly respectable option this time is that we might have to vote again even if we vote Yes. We’re told the addition of a protocol on growth would have no effect on the treaty, so there’d be no need for another vote.

However, this makes no economic sense: a meaningful growth strategy would have to have huge implications for fiscal policy.

It also makes no legal sense: we were told after the last two referendums that the addition of new protocols was such a big deal that it changed the question and legitimised the holding of a second vote.

So are we now to say that new protocols require a new vote when the people have voted No, but not when they’ve voted Yes? A No vote with an implied invitation to come back when the bigger picture is visible may be the most honest response to the demand that we make a decision in ignorance.

It would also be a responsible act of European citizenship, encouraging the change of direction without which the EU will destroy itself.

Changing the question is an Irish speciality that now happens to be, for Europe, a vital necessity.

From the Irish Times

By Will Hutton

Osborne has such a primitive view of what makes capitalism tick. This double-dip slump is made in Britain

Geoffrey Howe holds up the traditional budget box as he leaves 11 Downing Street to present his budget in March 1981. 'Osborne, a laissez-faire economic dry, would repeat Sir Geoffrey Howe’s budget … The result has been as inevitable as it is desperately sad.' Photograph: Pa

History will be unforgiving about George Osborne’s chancellorship. The British economy in May 2010, when he began his term, had just gone through a near-death experience. Its banking system had only 18 months earlier nearly collapsed. The stock of bank lending was, incredibly, worth five times more than Britain’s annual output. Moreover, enormous parts of the economy – from high street to property – had become dependent on a never-ending rise in consumption and property prices, which now had to come to an end. Any economists worth their salt knew that the aftermath of such a shock could lead to years of recession and stagnation if not handled carefully.

Yet Osborne – the kamikaze chancellor – and his Lib Dem coalition partners decided that the prime aim of government policy had to be eliminating the structural public sector deficit in just one parliament. Caution was thrown to the wind. The assumption was that the economy would quickly get back to business as usual; after all, as long as markets were free and flexible, what could go wrong? Osborne, a laissez-faire economic dry, would repeat Sir Geoffrey Howe’s budget of 1981, opening the way for tax cuts in the runup to the general election. He would keep the Murdoch press onside – and repeat the years of Margaret Thatcher’s hegemony.

The result has been as inevitable as it is desperately sad. On Wednesday we learned that Britain has experienced a double-dip recession just two years after the biggest decline in output since the early 1930s. Worse, it will not be until 2014 that output will return to 2008 levels – a six-year recession not equalled since the 1870s. What is happening is a disgrace.

Moreover, it is totally unnecessary. Britain has a very strong public balance sheet. The stock of our national debt, accumulated over decades, is modest compared with other countries and our own past. The rate of interest is the lowest since the 1890s. The debt is exceptionally long term and does not need to be refinanced with any sense of panic. Total debt service costs have been higher for only a few decades over the past 200 years.

Britain was supremely well placed to take a measured approach to budget deficit reduction. This had taken broadly seven or eight years after the 1976 IMF crisis and 1992 ERM crisis, with half the burden assumed by lifting taxes. Only an innocent or a fool would insist on it being done in four years, with four-fifths of the burden assumed by spending cuts. It was clear that a vicious circle could be created in which the severity of the programme would so puncture the growth in demand that the weakened banks would stay weakened – and business confidence would remain flat. Britain would be deadlocked in stagnation.

That is what is happening. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of a return to growth next year, driven by a surge in investment and exports, has looked absurd for months. The idea that business investment will jump 40% by 2015/16, the biggest since 1945, is risible.

A collective madness seems to have descended on our policymakers. Too few understand that what besets capitalism is unknowable risk – the risk of transformative new technologies, the risk of making epic business mistakes, or the risk of there being no demand for the goods and services a business produces. The task of government is to mitigate those risks – funding new technologies and actively using the tools of financial, fiscal and monetary policy to ensure there are rewards from innovation and investing. The paradox of successful capitalism is that, one way or another, risk has to be socialised. The US uses its defence budget and an active fiscal and monetary policy to do the job; Germany its banking and welfare system.

Britain in 2012 has to find ways of doing the same – but Osborne and the Treasury, supported by the governor of the Bank of England, remain implacably opposed. Vince Cable, the business secretary, has ideas about promoting lending on the infrastructure to innovative small business, or even curbing short-termism in the financial markets. David Willetts, the university minister, has given intriguing speeches about the need to promote a British innovation ecosystem. Inside government they have no listeners. A leaked letter from Cable to David Cameron pleaded for some sense of economic vision and direction over and above deficit reduction. There is none.

At bottom Cameron, like Osborne, has a primitive view of what makes capitalism tick. He does not understand the complexity of the inter-relationships between business, business risk, innovation and the state. He buys wholeheartedly the mantra that what mainly obstructs business is red tape, public sector debt and labour market regulation. Like two druids, Cameron and Osborne are offering blood sacrifices to re-create the boom – and failure does not make them question what they are doing, but rather reaffirms their belief in the sacrifice. Of course events in Europe hardly help matters – but cannot alone explain the profundity of Britain’s plight. This stagnation is firmly made at home.

From the Guardian

By Kim Willsher

Greece’s leftwing leader tells Paris audience that other EU countries will be next if they fail to oppose radical austerity drive

Alexis Tsipras tells reporters in Paris that the future of Europe and the euro depended on the outcome of the Greece debt crisis. Photograph: Remy De La Mauviniere/AP

The rising star of Europe Alexis Tsipras, the radical left Greek leader, has arrived in Paris to warn EU countries that their turn would come if they failed to oppose the radical austerity that is driving Greece to the brink of “collective suicide”.

Tsipras, who is leading an austerity-backlash, said the future of Europe and the euro depended on the outcome of the Greece debt crisis. And he said he could feel a “wind of change” blowing across the continent that he hoped would lead to the “complete re-founding of Europe based on social cohesion and solidarity”.

To continue down the path of austerity, he warned, would turn the Greek tragedy into an European catastrophe.

“Greece is a link in a chain. If it breaks it is not just the link that is broken but the whole chain. What people have to understand is that the Greek crisis concerns not just Greece but all European people so a common European solution has to be found,” he told a press conference in Paris.

“The public debt crisis is hitting the south of Europe but it will soon hit central Europe. People have to realise that their own country could be threatened.

“We are here to explain to people in Europe that we have nothing against them. We are fighting the battle in Greece not just for the Greek people but for people in France, Germany and all European countries.”

“I am not here to blackmail, I am here to mobilise,” he said.

“Greece gave humanity democracy and today the Greek people will bring democracy back to Europe.”

Opinion polls suggest Tsipras’s party Syriza could be in a position to lead a coalition government in Greece after a second general election next month. He was in the French capital to meet members of France’s far left, including Front de Gauche firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who stood as a presidential candidate in April.

The young and charismatic Greek politician will travel to Berlin to reiterate his message; this is that Greece wants no more austerity and is willing to tear up the country’s €130bn (£105bn) bailout agreement if necessary.

His defiance appears to be catching. Before Greece held a general election on 6 May, the 37 year old and his Syriza party were widely mocked as a motley collection of ex-Trotskyists, Maoists, champagne socialists and greens, who appealed to fewer than 5% of voters. After polling more than 25%, the Greeks and the rest of Europe have been forced to take him and his party seriously.

At a press conference at the French Assemblée nationale on Monday, there was a scrum as dozens of journalists from around the world packed into a small wood-panelled room in the parliament building and jostled for the chance to ask Tsipras questions.

Pierre Laurent, national secretary of the French Communist party and president of the European Left party, himself a former journalist, was having no truck with those waving their arms about and huffing and puffing about not being able to address the Greek politician.

“It’s me who decides,” he said firmly. Laurent added that he was “delighted to welcome” Tsipras and supported his crusade against austerity that was not only “conducting us into a dead end” but was “anti-democratic”.

Tsipras also looked delighted at the turnout smiling as he pushed his way through the journalists, nodding, shaking hands and saying “bonjour”, which, it turned out, seemed to be his only word of French.

Talking through an interpreter, and using his hands to emphasise his points, he was forceful and determined to enlist France in his anti-capitalist crusade.

“We [Syriza] are very happy to discover that even if we are not in government we can feel a wind of change blowing everywhere. Things that were yesterday considered impossible are today being discussed. Today they are being discussed, tomorrow they will be accepted.”

He said if the left in Greece won a victory in the June general election it would be the “start of change and upheaval across the whole of Europe”.

Asked what he thought of the German chancellor Angela Merkel‘s suggestion that Greece should hold a referendum to decide whether to remain in the euro, Tsipras stopped smiling.

“Merkel must understand that she is an equal partner with others in a euro zone that has no tenants and owners. She should not allow herself to behave as if we are a protectorate,” he said sternly, tapping his red ballpoint pen on the table.

“Greece is a sovereign country and it’s not for Madame Merkel to decide if we hold a referendum or not.”

He said he wanted Greece to remain in the eurozone, but was equally dismissive of the German-led philosophy of “growth through austerity” as a means of resolving the Greek – and European – sovereign debt crisis.

“That’s like having sun and rain at the same time. Impossible,” he said.

Sitting next to him, Mélenchon, nodded vigorously. Earlier Melenchonn said recent threats to expel Greece from the eurozone unless the country complied with the German-led austerity programme were “in vain … and counter-productive”.

Tsipras also reiterated his belief, aired in an interview with the Guardian at the weekend, that Greece was being subjected to an austerity programme as part of a “neoliberal shock experiment”.

“This has driven my country to an unprecedented crisis and a humanitarian crisis. If this experiment is successful in Greece it will be exported to other European countries,” he said.

He added: “The war we are fighting in Europe is not between people or nations, it is between the forces of work and the invisible forces of finance and banks.

“It is difficult to be victorious over an enemy when that enemy has no face, no programme, no political party but who governs us even so. If we perfect our victory in Greece it will sent a great message of hope throughout Europe.”

Asked about France’s new president François Hollande, who is also riding the anti-austerity wave after defeating Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this month, Tsipras said the new leader had to show “what he said before the election still counts after it”.

He raised a laugh by adding: “If the French people have sent Mr Sarkozy off to Morocco for a holiday it’s because they want change not more of the same.”

If the cynics in France were of a mind to beware of Greeks bearing revolutionary ideologies, Tsipras insisted he was not visiting Paris and Berlin to engage in blackmail or threats, but to wrest the “values of democracy” away from the banks and the capitalists.

From the Guardian

By Coalition of Resistance

Coalition of Resistance welcomes the TUC’s decision to call a national demonstration against austerity in the autumn around the slogan “a future that works”.

The TUC released this statement:

500,000 marched on 26th March last year

The TUC is to organise a mass demonstration in London under the banner of ‘A Future That Works’ on Saturday 20 October 2012. A march through central London will culminate in a rally in Hyde Park.

On March 26 2011 the TUC’s March for the Alternative attracted 500,000 people to a march and rally in London.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘The tide is turning against austerity. We were told that spending cuts were needed to get the economy growing, yet they have driven the UK back into recession. We were told that we were all in it together, yet Mr Cameron’s main purpose at the G8 summit seemed to be protecting the banks against the growing international support for a Robin Hood tax – and the last Budget’s centrepiece was cutting the 50p tax rate.

‘It is becoming ever clearer that this government does not have the policies – or even much of a commitment – to build a prosperous economy that can generate the jobs and industries we need for the future.

‘Rather than bold policies for investment and growth, the best that ministers can do is half-baked proposals to make it easier to sack people.

‘That is why we expect a huge turnout from the growing numbers that want a future that works. With the USA and France now setting out the alternative, it’s time the UK also changed course.’

By Shiv Malik

Sandwell and West Birmingham hospitals trust to extend unpaid work experience scheme after successful pilot

The trust said participants would carry out tasks such as 'general tidying, serving drinks to patients, and assisting with feeding'. Photograph: Press Association

A hospital trust is planning to extend a scheme under which dozens of unpaid jobseekers help deliver patient care in its wards.

After a pilot involving six unemployed people working unpaid for eight weeks to help feed patients and clean wards, Sandwell and West Birmingham hospitals trust said it was aiming to extend the government work experience programme to all three of its hospitals.

The trust said all participants in the initial pilot were CRB-checked and received two weeks of training at Sandwell College before carrying out their tasks in hospital wards, involving “general tidying, welcoming visitors, serving drinks to patients, running errands, reading to patients and assisting with feeding patients”.

Union representatives confirmed they had been consulted , and had initially consented to, plans that meant unemployed people could gain experience of work at the hospital.

But they said they had not agreed that the jobseekers would “play a direct role in patient care” and said they were very worried about the prospect of this happening.

After protests over the work experience scheme earlier this year, ministers changed the rules to make it possible for jobseekers to pull out of their placements without having their benefits docked.

A later freedom of information request uncovered that the rule change now applies to three out of the five schemes that are not explicitly mandatory.

The hospital trust said the eight-week placements were “not nursing roles” but would instead “support patients through their hospital experience”.

“We are situated in a deprived area with high unemployment and we think it is important to help get people back into work. The project gave participants the opportunity to gain confidence, training and experience, under supervision,” a trust statement said.

It added that two participants were offered jobs after taking part, but clarified that these jobs were outside the NHS.

“The pilot is now complete and, after further consultation with trade unions and managers, we are aiming to run similar programmes across our three hospitals: City hospital in Birmingham, Sandwell hospital and Rowley Regis hospital,” the statement said.

A Unison spokesperson described the move as “a worrying glimpse of the future”, saying that feeding patients and helping them to drink were skilled aspects of patient care and required people with the “right experience”.

Ravi Subramanian, the head of Unison, West Midlands, said: “Far from Tory claims to protect the NHS, Birmingham and Sandwell hospital trust is being forced to find savings of £125m over the next five years.

“Thousands of staff are facing the prospect of losing their jobs and wards are closing. Now the hospital is making moves to deliver healthcare on the cheap, by using people on work experience to help with patient care. Patients and staff will rightly be very worried about the standard of patient care as this scheme is rolled out.”

From the Guardian

By Owen Jones

It’s coming up to four years since Lehman Brothers came crashing down. For a few terrifying weeks, it seemed as though the whole global financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse.

Last year's 'March for the Alternative' - March 26th

Only massive state intervention across the Western world prevented the ultimate catastrophe. George W Bush, then the figurehead of the most aggressively right-wing US administration of modern times, presided over the biggest nationalisations in history. For a moment, it seemed as though neo-liberal dogma – of deregulation and the absolute supremacy of the market – was on the ropes.

But those optimistic for a break from the past ended up being cruelly disappointed. A crisis of neo-liberalism perversely became the biggest opportunity yet for neo-liberalism. ‘You never let a serious crisis go to waste’, said Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff in 2008. ‘And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.’ It was a statement that succinctly summed up the strategy of governments in Britain and across Europe.

Policies that were not otherwise politically possible were imposed across the European Union: the privatisation of public services; the hiking of taxes that disproportionately fall on the poor, such as VAT: the slashing of taxes on big business and the wealthy; and a bonfire of workers’ rights. It has been complemented with an austerity agenda without precedent for generations. In the Eurozone, the EU Treaty enshrined near-zero structural deficits, effectively banning a public stimulus. As BBC Newsnight Economics Editor Paul Mason wrote at the time, ‘the eurozone has outlawed expansionary fiscal policy.’

The consequences have been nothing short of disastrous. Growth has been sucked out of economies, while debt-to-GDP ratios have soared in countries such as Portugal. As the Standard & Poor credit agency – not noted as a bastion of left-wing propaganda – pointed out when it downgraded the credit ratings of nine EU countries: ‘fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues.’

Here in Britain, George Osborne faces having to borrow up to £158 billion more than originally projected. A promised ‘private sector-led jobs recovery’ has not materialised, as public sector job losses eclipsed new positions in the private sector. The economy is now smaller than it was before Osborne’s 2010 spending review and – earlier this year – it was revealed that austerity had driven the country into the first double-dip recession since the 1970s. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put it, Britain faces a ‘death spiral of self-defeating austerity’. All the predictions of those dismissed as ‘deficit-deniers’ were vindicated, although satisfaction can hardly be derived from this economic catastrophe. The UK economy is not predicted to return to its pre-recession position until 2014 – making this the most protracted economic crisis since the Long Depression, which began 140 years ago.

With austerity discredited, the tide has begun to change. In France, Socialist François Hollande won the presidential elections after pledging to reject austerity in favour of growth, and to hike taxes on the rich. In elections in Greece, parties rejecting a cuts agenda that has devastated Greek society triumphed. In other countries such as the Netherlands, anti-austerity parties are surging in the opinion polls. Even in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party faced one of its biggest defeats since World War II in local elections over its policies on spending.

There is no more pressing time to develop a coherent alternative to austerity than now. Class is an absolutely crucial initiative for this reason. It will bring together economists, academics and other experts to flesh out a different course for Britain and Europe. Policies promoting growth; democratic control of the banks; progressive taxation; an industrial strategy; dealing with the housing crisis – all of these are among the issues that have to be tackled.

Where opponents of austerity have failed is by often falling back on sloganizing; failing to flesh out alternatives in detail; and failing to link together their ideas. That will now change. We have been denied a genuine debate about how to respond to the crisis. For the first time since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the winds are shifting. There is a growing appetite for a different way forward. It is time that it was satisfied.

From CLASS

By John McDonnell

Cameron and Osborne have repeated again throughout this week that there is no alternative to their failing austerity programme.
I feel that there needs to be a clear statement from the Left that there is an alternative to austerity and it goes beyond just cutting less deep and less fast.

I have set out below a brief statement of what that alternative could contain.

It is not meant as a definitive statement but at least a broad depiction of what a radical alternative would comprise.

I am asking people to consider putting their name to it so that we can continue to circulate it to the movement.

Please let me know if you are willing to put your name to the statement by emailing me on mcdonnellj@parliament.uk.

You can help greatly by circulating the statement as well and putting it up on your website or blog or tweeting it.

Thanks

John

The Radical Alternative to Austerity.  

The austerity programme of the Coalition government is not just failing; it is prolonging and deepening the recession. Cuts in investment in public services, in jobs, wages, pensions and benefits are creating mass unemployment and mounting hardship.

Austerity is creating a spiral of economic decline as cuts produce high levels of unemployment which in turn reduces tax income and prompts another round of cuts and job losses.

The Government’s austerity measures are also unfair as the only people the Government seems intent on protecting from the recession are the rich.

There is an alternative to austerity.

There is no lack of wealth and resources in our country that we can draw upon to tackle this recession. The problem is that this wealth and these resources are held in the hands of too few people and are not being used productively to create the growth and jobs we need.

If we can release these resources, we can overcome the current recession and start to build a prosperous future for our country, linking with others across Europe and the United States to overcome this global economic gridlock.

Releasing the resources within our own country is not difficult.

It simply requires the introduction of a limited range of redistributive measures which will raise the funds we need from those most able to pay and who have profited most out of the boom years.

This redistribution can be achieved through; a wealth tax on the richest 10%,  a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions,  a Land Value tax, the restoration of progressive income tax of 60% on incomes above £100,000 and a clamp down on the tax evasion and avoidance that is costing us £95 billion a year.

Investing the resources released can halt the spiral of decline.

With unemployment rising month by month we urgently need to get people back to work and earning a decent living.

We can do this by investing the resources we have released through taxation in modernising our economy, its infrastructure and our public services to meet the needs of our community.

Instead of cutting and privatising our health, education and local services, this means:

Investing in a mass public housing building and renovation programme, in universal childcare, in the modernisation of our public services, in the NHS, in creating a national Caring Service, in our schools and colleges, in our transport infrastructure and in the extension of broadband.

Investing in alternative energy, combined heat and power and insulation to both tackle climate change and create one million climate change jobs.

Establishing a national investment bank with the resources levied from the banks so that there is no shortage of funds to lend for manufacturing growth and research and development.

To be successful the recovery programme has to be fair.

We will need the support of a significant majority of our people if we are to drive through this type of radical regeneration and redistribution programme.

To gain this level of support means the Radical Alternative must be seen to be fair. This means addressing many of the inequalities of our current system.

For those at the top it means ending the bonuses and limiting high salaries to no more than 20 times the lowest paid in any company or organisation.

For all others it means replacing the minimum wage with a living wage and a living pension and living welfare benefits, reducing the working week to 35 hours, closing the gender pay gap, controlling rents and energy prices, and restoring rights at work.

For young people it means a guaranteed job, apprenticeship, training or college place for every young person with the burden of fees abolished.

There is no shortage of resources to implement this programme of reform.

The problem is the distribution of these resources.

The Radical Alternative simply releases the resources we have to regain control of our economy and invest in our future.

Never again can we let them say that there is no alternative.

By Randeep Ramesh

Duty to women, disabled people and ethnic minorities ignored in coalition zeal, says Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Treasury failed to consider how crucial policies would affect women, disabled people and ethnic minorities before the 2010 spending review, according to a report by the equality watchdog.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it was “unable to establish” whether government had checked how its flagship schemes would hit vulnerable people – despite this being a legal necessity.

In key areas of policy, the government appeared to set aside equality legislation in the rush to push through eyecatching policies. Under the law, ministers must determine the effects of proposals, and mitigate or justify them so that outcomes are fairer.

The report says the government has not “fully grasped … the requirements of public sector equality duties”. It censures the Treasury, saying the cumulative effects of policies on vulnerable groups was not considered in a “meaningful or comprehensive way”.

For the first time, the commission considered nine policies and concluded that in six areas – child benefit, council tax, the pupil premium, legal aid, disability living allowance and employment support – the government fulfilled its equality obligations.

The Treasury was found lacking in three areas. In the capping of household benefits – limiting welfare to £500 a week for couples and lone parent households – the policy was announced before its impact on women was known. When 20% was cut from low fares subsidies to bus services, ministers did not examine the effect on disabled people.

The most glaring omission appears to be of an equality analysis concerning withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance (EMA), which paid up to £30 a week to poor teenagers who stayed on at school or college beyond 16.

Although almost half of children from ethnic minorities live in low-income households – compared with a quarter of white British children – the commission discovered the decision to halt the subsidy had been made without any reference to ethnicity.

The commission found the Treasury often batted away arguments on gender by saying it did not have the information required to make judgments. However, the report says, officials could “consider the impact on sub-groups of women or groups where women are over-represented … for example, just over 90% of lone parents are women”.

For the Treasury to continue to disregard these sub-groups, the commission warns, may be breaking the law by enforcing indirect discrimination.

For example the report says: “A policy which puts part-time workers at a particular disadvantage would be unlawful as proportionately more part-time workers are women … Other departments, such as the DWP [Department of Work and Pensions], conduct analysis of sub-groups as part of their equality assessments.”

In some instances, data was only made available to the Treasury shortly before the spending review. Equality data for controversial legal aid cuts – which included removing support for victims of domestic violence – was given to the Treasury “days before” the review was published.

The commission’s report follows a legal case brought by the Fawcett Society, which campaigns on women’s rights, in August 2010. Campaigners argued the government could not show it had assessed whether the emergency budget in June that year would increase or reduce inequality between women and men.

In court Justice Ouseley refused a judicial review, saying analysis of the government’s spending plans would be better carried out by the EHRC. Trevor Phillips, its chair, agreed. He said the report would lead to “more targeted spending, more effective use of public money, and above all greater fairness all round”.

Labour has calculated that 75% of the £15bn in spending cuts since 2010 has fallen on women’s shoulders. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and shadow minister for women and equalities, said: “This report shows ministers didn’t even properly consider the impact of their plans on inequality in advance … The government didn’t stop to consider the overall impact on inequality, and ministers didn’t insist on proper information about whether measures would be unfair before they took their decisions.”

Campaigners welcomed the report but said it had taken too long – the commission started its work in November 2010.

Ceri Goddard, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said: “We are now seeing the impact that was entirely predictable: women’s unemployment is at a 25-year high, women are being worst hit by cuts to benefits and women are also acting as shock absorbers for cuts to public services.”

The Treasury said it had cooperated fully with the commission. A spokeswoman said: “In the spending review the government had to take tough decisions to cut the deficit and put the public finances back on a stable footing. But the government has made these decisions in the fairest way possible.”

From the Guardian

By John Pring

The government has refused to say what advice it has received from local councils and the Department of Health (DH) about the wider impact of its sweeping cuts to spending on disability living allowance (DLA).

Concerns about the knock-on effects of the cuts, particularly on people’s ability to work, and their increased need for support from local councils and the NHS, were raised in a report by Disability Rights UK (DR UK) last month.

But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has so far been unable to produce any evidence to show that it has analysed these knock-on effects, despite plans to cut spending on working-age DLA by 20 per cent, or £1.4 billion a year by 2015-16.

It insisted this week that DWP ministers and civil servants had held “numerous meetings” with colleagues in DH and local authorities, as part of planning for the replacement of working-age DLA with a new personal independence payment (PIP).

But it has so far been unable to produce any evidence to back-up its claim that councils and the NHS were not likely to see a rise in demand for their services as a result of the cuts, stating only that DWP was “working with Department of Health and local authorities to consider impacts”.

When asked what DH and councils had told DWP about the likely effects of the cuts on demand for their services, a DWP spokesman said: “We will continue to work with Department of Health and local authorities to consider impacts.”

And when asked again exactly what they had told DWP, he said: “We’ve got nothing further to add.”

Last week, the disabled Labour MP Dame Anne Begg raised concerns about the government’s failure to measure the wider impact of its cuts on disabled people.

Dame Anne said that those losing DLA might also be losing employment and support allowance and council-funded social care, and there was an “urgent” need to investigate the impact of all of the cuts on disabled people.

Questioned by the Green MP Caroline Lucas on whether DWP would assess the “cumulative effect” of planned reforms to benefits and services on disabled people, Maria Miller, the Conservative minister for disabled people, said this week that such an analysis would be too complex to undertake.

She said this was because of the “detailed information on individuals and families that is required to estimate the interactions of a number of different policy changes”, while many policy details were “still to be worked through”.

Meanwhile, members of the We Are Spartacus online community of disabled activists have submitted a detailed report to DWP as part of the latest government consultation on the proposed assessment criteria for PIP.

The report, which includes a foreword by the disabled peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, makes more than 100 recommendations for improvements to the PIP assessment, and is based on more than 600 responses to a survey. Most of the survey responses came from people who receive DLA.

We Are Spartacus describes itself as “an online information and peer support hub for an emerging movement of disabled and sick people brought together by unease over government reforms and popular discourse around disability”.

From the Fed centre for independent living

DWP stays silent on DLA cuts advice from councils

The Greece Solidarity Campaign’s recent delegation to Athens met with ALEXIS TSIPRAS MP, Leader of SYRIZA and President of Synaspismos. The delegation meeting him included national representatives from UNITE, CWU, FBU and TSSA, together with Romayne Phoenix, Chair of the Coalition of Resistance, Rachel Newton, National Coordinator of the People’s Charter and Paul Mackney, Chair of the Greece Solidarity Campaign, pictured here with Alexis Tsipras and other comrades from SYRIZA.

The impact of austerity

Alexis Tsipras described as ‘catastrophic’ the impact of austerity on Greek society, describing public hospitals on the brink of collapse with a shortage of medical supplies, and there were no new books at the start of the school year, so parents were forced to photocopy old ones. He said ‘it’s only a matter of time before the next social explosion’.

Mr Tsipras told the delegation that if austerity is the ‘prescription’ to cure the economic crisis, it is ‘the medicine of disaster’ and that the policies being imposed by the IMF/EU and World Bank are destroying social cohesion, destroying the political system and destroying the economy.

He described how the imposition of these policies, being implemented by a Government with no electoral mandate was a ‘violation of the democratic establishment’ and a ‘loss of national sovereignty’.

Background to austerity in Greece

The representatives from Synaspismos described some of the build up to the crisis. They outlined how national income through tax had diminished year on year, even in the ‘development years’ when there was economic growth.

They told the delegation that 110 billion euros were lost through avoidance and evasion of tax on profits by richest in Greece, with tax evasion by the rich on a grand scale in the last 10 years. Instead of collecting money owned by the wealthy a direct tax (VAT) of 23% has been levied, affecting the poorest most. An example of this was given: Greece has the biggest merchant fleet in the world, but the fleet owners pay less in tax that the entire immigrant population in Greece.

They described how for two and a half years the banks, bailed out in 2008, have not paid back the money that they owe the Greek people. Tsipras described the ESKRO off-shore account created outside of Greece by the Greek government, which will pay banks and other international creditors first, and whatever is left will go to meet the social needs of Greece. 40 billion Euros of capital has left Greece in the last year.

Not a Greek crisis

Representatives talked about their efforts to counter the incorrect arguments that single out Greece as the cause of the crisis – the ‘black sheep.’ They described their view of the causes of the crisis are because of the neo-liberal economic policies followed across Europe and beyond, making it a ‘European crisis, a capitalist crisis, not a Greek crisis….not a war between people and nations but between classes.

The problem is ‘not the cook making a bad meal but the recipe’. (Alexis Tsipras)

They described the austerity policies as ‘shock neo-liberal measures’ that were a socio-political experiment – using Greece to see how much a society can take, how far resources can be privatised and a new  supply of cheap labour be created, to export to neighbouring countries.

What needs to happen?

Alexis Tsipras talked about the need for the left to create a climate of social justice and campaign for alternative policies

He said that the Government had no mandate to sign the two memoranda, and questioned their legality. He said the first job of a new Government with a popular mandate should be to renegotiate the memos, on the agreed principal that Greek society cannot take the policies of the two memos. Furthermore they felt that the key question was not in or out of the eurozone, but rather exploiting being in it to support renegotiation.

They outlined how regardless of any renegotiations their view is that there needs to be a reorganisation of social and economic structures. Key features of this include socialisation (nationalisation) of the banking system and redistribution of wealth through a radical change in the taxation system – taxing big capital not poverty.

Mr Tsipras told the delegation that political figures on the left and ex-PASOK needed to create an electoral alliance. He said that this hasn’t been possible so far, because of different traditions and party interests. However he said that SYRIZA was an initiative trying to create this alliance, to include ex-PASOK members. He said that such an alliance could allow the left to come second in the forthcoming elections.

What can a solidarity movement in the UK do?

The delegation was told how important the initiative of setting up a solidarity campaign in the UK is in supporting those opposing austerity in Greece.

The Synaspismos representatives stressed the need for solidarity action that challenges the notion that this is a problem with Greece and the slurs about Greek people. They described how the situation was impacting on Greek people in two ways – making them feel isolated and under attack, but at the same time, some believing the politicians and the media that say the Greek people are to blame. The delegation was told how important solidarity support from the UK could be in overcoming both of these things.

‘It is very important to the Greek people that there is such an initiative as this in Britain. It is important to the Greek people to understand that they are not alone and there other people with them against the attack taking place’. (Alexis Tsipras)

The delegation was told about the importance of the international links made in the squares movement – with Occupy Wall St and the Arab social occupation movements – and the need to link up with movements such as these, and build on the connections already made.

Representatives stressed the importance in Greece of the trade unions being in the forefront of opposition to austerity, and that this meant it was vital for international solidarity to include union to union links and – ultimately – coordinated international action. An example of such action had recently taking place, with a day of action in Greece on 29th February supported by solidarity action organised by the trade unions in Portugal and Spain.

‘This is a European crisis and we must respond on a European basis. This needs to include Europe outside of the EU, a new internationalism.’  (Alexis Tsipras)

By Costas Lapavitsas

Syriza’s electoral success marks the start of the first major battle against austerity. The whole continent should will them to win

Syriza, led by Alexis Tsipras, centre, 'stands every chance of … forming a coalition government of anti-bailout forces' in Greece. Photograph: Simela Pantzartzi/EPA

The clear winner of the recent Greek elections is Syriza, a coalition of leftwing organisations active for several years. The fascist Golden Dawn party has also made stunning gains but its rise, disturbing as it might be, is neither the main outcome of the elections, nor yet a major threat to Greek society. Political momentum belongs to Syriza. If it gets its act together, it could help resolve the crisis and give a boost to the European anti-austerity movement.

The two staple parties of Greek government – Pasok and New Democracy – have been trounced for bringing the country to this pass over four decades, and for implementing the bailout agreements. The Greek electorate has clearly stated what it does not want: old politics and the so-called rescue by the troika of the EU, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

During the past two years a parade of mediocre Greek politicians have pretended to negotiate with the troika, while decrying their own country as “corrupt”. They were backed by technical experts terrified at the thought of displeasing the lenders to Greece. Some of the politicians and experts were people who had also handled the disastrous Greek entry into European monetary union. The result was two bailout agreements, in May 2010 and March 2012 – monuments to bad economics and social callousness. By the end of 2012 austerity will have led to contraction of the Greek economy by 20%, a jump in unemployment toward 25%, a full-blown humanitarian crisis in the urban centres, and a completely unmanageable public debt. Greece is dying on its feet. Meanwhile its old political class twitters on about participating in the European “game” and making structural reforms that will bring growth in the future.

Syriza has caused an earthquake by denouncing March’s bailout. It has called for a moratorium on debt payments, an international commission to audit Greek debt, aggressive debt write-offs, deep redistribution of income and wealth, bank nationalisation, and a new industrial policy to rejuvenate the manufacturing sector. These measures are exactly what the Greek economy needs. Implementing them depends entirely on rejecting the recent bailout and stopping payments on the debt.

Syriza believes that the measures can be introduced while the country remains within the eurozone. It has been unwilling to call for Greek exit, thus increasing its appeal to voters who worry about the aftermath of exit and believe that the euro is integral to the European identity of Greeks. In my view, and that of many other economists, it would be impossible for Greece to stay in the eurozone if it went down this path. Moreover, exit would be both necessary and beneficial to the economy in the medium term, and remains the most likely outcome for Greece. If Syriza really wanted to contribute to solving the crisis, it should get itself ready for this eventuality.

Nonetheless, the pressing issue at the moment is to free the country from the stranglehold of debt and austerity. As long as Syriza is prepared to take action to achieve these aims, and the Greek people wish to give it the benefit of the doubt on the euro, its role can be positive. At the very least, it offers a chance for Greece to avoid a complete disaster that might truly lead to the rise of fascism.

The current round of domestic political negotiations is unlikely to lead to a government being formed, especially one that could continue to implement the terms of the bailout. There will probably be new elections in the near future and Syriza stands every chance of winning decisively, thus forming a coalition government of the anti-bailout forces. But for this, Syriza should realise its own limitations, and actively seek to create the broad political front that Greece needs.

It is important to seek unity at all times, avoiding both gloating and the ancient factionalism of the Greek left. Syriza will need the active co-operation of the rest of the left if it is to muster sufficient forces to deal with the storm ahead. It is equally important to improve its appeal to experienced and knowledgeable people across society, for it will need many more in its ranks.

Finally, if there is a new government led by Syriza, it will rely on the support of people across Europe to tackle the catastrophe inflicted on Greece by the eurozone crisis. The first major battle against austerity is about to begin in Greece, and all European people have an interest in winning it.

From the Guardian

Illustration by Satoshi Kambayashi

In order to affirm its loyalty to Europe, the Irish political elite has decided that it is best not to pay too much attention to European reality. “Austerity” may be, as Joseph Stiglitz argued recently, “Europe’s man-made disaster”, yet the coalition government of Fine Gael and Labour has gambled on positioning Ireland as the poster child for Frankfurt and Berlin’s extended experiment in disaster denial. That neoliberal retrenchment through cuts and market-oriented “reforms” would push recession towards depression has long been obvious, but official strategy has been to place austerity in a realm beyond politics as a shared sacrifice necessary to restore investor “confidence”.

Confidence is an elusive property, as Irish borrowing costs remain much higher than those of Italy and Spain, and policies of “fiscal retrenchment” have not produced a change in the fundamentals of the Irish economy after four years of budgetary purgatory and social misery. The implacable fantasy has, of course, been resistant to evidence, but the decisive political rejection of austerity fetishism by the French and Greek electorates has opened up a democratic space of resistance at a time when popular opposition is taking shape in Ireland, and just weeks before the 31 May referendum on the EU fiscal treaty. The platform of “vote yes for stability” is now faced with the difficult task of identifying the “stability” it expects the electorate to approve.

Regardless, it appears that the ballast for stability will be provided by the manufacture of fear, as the yes campaign has framed the vote as an existential choice for Ireland. The fiscal treaty will provide the bedrock for recovery and future stability, while a no vote could prove catastrophic, placing the country outside the European stability mechanism (ESM) – the EU lifeline to debt-ridden states – and thus unable to fund public services. A no vote would also damage Ireland’s reputation in Brussels and detract from its attractiveness as a destination for US foreign direct investment.

The problem for the yes side is that it must cajole a weary electorate to accede to the constitutional “locking-in” of austerity at precisely the moment that its ideological nature is fully exposed. Front-loaded fiscal adjustment has accelerated the rate of contraction in Ireland, as higher taxes and lower spending have reduced disposable income and aggregate demand. Far from encouraging a return to growth, Ireland is now in its fifth year of swingeing budget cuts.

There will be virtually no growth in 2012, and the International Monetary Fund’s own figures show that the ratio of debt to GDP will have risen, not fallen, in every year from 2008 to 2013 in Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. The staggering statistics for youth unemployment in Greece and Spain are now well known – in Ireland the figure of more than 30% is kept artificially low due to high levels of emigration.

The IMF forecasts that the economy will shrink this year, in real terms, in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, while Ireland will struggle to reach 0.5% growth. The architects of the hastily constructed fiscal treaty hope to commit these countries – and Ireland, once its quaint attachment to democratic ritual has been surmounted – to legal restrictions on already negligible political control over the economy. The treaty will diminish domestic oversight over budgetary policy and inscribe abstract and highly politicised measures such as the “structural deficit” into the Irish constitution.

For all the probably cosmetic public commitments to growth measures announced in the aftermath of François Hollande’s election, this package of rules will almost certainly lead to even higher unemployment, accelerate further deflation and increase the substantive burden of debt. As Terrence McDonough, professor of economics at National University of Ireland, Galway, summarises: “Take a country at the bottom of a depression. Force it to run budget cuts and tax increases year after year after year. Force the same policy on its neighbours and trading partners. Run this into the foreseeable future and hope it results in stability, confidence and recovery. This is a dangerous experiment, completely without historical precedent.” It is also an experiment designed to further normalise the socialisation of the massive, speculative debts of the banking sector.

While European developments sharpen the focus on this referendum, it also takes place at a moment when domestic resistance to austerity has begun to emerge, if not yet cohere. It has been a cliche of crisis coverage that society in Ireland has passively absorbed the cuts, with the elite refrain that ‘”we are not Greece, we will behave” mirrored in the chant of Greek protesters that “we are not Irish, we will resist”. However, the recent household tax boycott, which saw half of all registered homeowners refuse to pay a flat property tax, has suggested that the rejection of austerity politics now extends beyond the organised resistance of community groups and left parties.

Opposition to a property tax may appear as an unusual conduit for progressive politics, but it was levied equally on mansions and the negative equity millstones that are the tangible legacy of the boom for tens of thousands. People struggling to deal with the combined impact of service cuts, salary losses and unemployment were regularly informed that “€100 is not a lot of money” (and in a sense it isn’t, when thrown at the socialised bank debt it was ultimately designed to service). How this collective refusal plays out in the referendum is difficult to predict, but the mantra of “no alternatives” will not be easily restored.

From the Guardian

By Dan Milmo

The union chief has become a prominent figure in the pensions battle, but not without upsetting some of his colleagues

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants' union. Photograph: Martin Godwin

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, has emerged from the left of the trade union movement to become a figurehead in the campaign against government spending cuts.

Relationships with fellow union bosses have been bruised along the way. Accusations levelled against his peers, including the claim that they have been “infected with a deep-seated fatalism” over battling pension reforms, grated with colleagues, including the general secretaries of the Trades Union Congress and Unison, the largest public sector union.

In an interview at the PCS’s headquarters in south London, Serwotka produces evidence that some bridges have been mended. A letter from Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, offers “full support and solidarity” to the PCS, the UK’s largest civil service union. “It is significant that Unison are writing in these terms,” says Serwotka, although Unison’s more than 1 million public sector members are not taking part in the walkouts.

Citing the election results in France and Greece, which saw significant votes against austerity measures, and Unison’s recent rejection of reforms to NHS pensions, Serwotka says the tide is turning against the UK government. The Labour party’s position on cuts is too moderate, says Serwotka – Ed Miliband’s backing for a public sector pay freeze riled union leaders – but political ballots on the continent indicated Miliband could toughen his stance. “What the results in France and Greece show is that if you go even further than Labour, it is even more popular.”

The last major walkout by public sector employees, when up to a million people took part in strikes on 30 November, was followed by outline agreements on reforms to civil service, education and health pensions. Those have yet to receive overwhelming backing, although attempts to reform local government schemes are showing more progress.

“The significance of this strike is that the government clearly thought that 30 November was the end of it, and they are clearly trying to project the image that the issue is done. These strikes will show very clearly that this is not the case,” says Serwotka. The reforms include higher contributions, switching people on final salary pensions to career average schemes, changing the uprating of benefits from the RPI measure of inflation to the less strident CPI rate, and pegging the public sector pension age to the state pension age – that means you have to work longer, and pay more, for your retirement benefits. Some of these changes will be encapsulated in a pensions bill unveiled in the Queen’s speech this week. “There will be three years before a lot of these pension changes are in,” says Serwotka, reiterating that the PCS will wage a long campaign against the reforms. “They have to go through parliament. These strikes will be the latest expression that the tide has turned back against the government.”

Serwotka urges the TUC, the body that has been leading union negotiations over pension changes with government ministers, to reopen talks on the reforms. “The strikes will indicate that the show is back on the road,” he says. “The tide is coming back. The time has come for the TUC to get back in touch with the government and call for talks to reopen.” A union source said this would be a matter for the TUC’s public service liaison group, chaired by Prentis, although the government made clear on Wednesday night that any attempt to reopen talks would receive short shrift. Francis Maude, the cabinet secretary, said: “Pension talks will not be reopened and nothing further will be achieved through strike action.”

This will leave the onus on the likes of PCS and Unite, Britain’s largest union but smaller than Unison in public sector terms, to rebuild the coalition of nearly 30 unions that took part in the 30 November walkouts. Another national walkout is planned for June, which could include the National Union of Teachers. The NASUWT, the other major teachers’ union, could strike in the autumn. “Unions now representing a massive majority of public sector trade unionists are not accepting what is on offer,” says Serwotka, pointing to the Unison health vote and an upcoming GMB poll on health pensions, where the recommendation is to reject.

In the meantime, the PCS will push on with a programme of industrial action. Members at individual government departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport, will take part in discrete industrial action over the summer. This will include Border Agency staff at Heathrow airport. “Periodically we will have these national set-piece days,” says Serwotka, “but in between there will be ongoing days of action by individual employee groups, related to the government’s austerity measures.” His main challenge is getting other unions to join in.

From the Guardian

By Seumas Milne

The French and Greek elections have already shifted Europe’s politics. But it needs real change to hold the right at bay

Revolt against austerity is sweeping Europe. The election of François Hollande has not only opened up the chance of a change of direction in France, but even in the citadels of fiscal orthodoxy in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin. In Greece, Sunday’s electoral earthquake has all but destroyed the political establishment that dominated the country for 40 years.

From the Netherlands to Romania, governments are falling under the weight of cuts and tax rises required by the eurozone’s new permanent deflation treaty. In Ireland, the anti-austerity tide is swelling support for a no vote in this month’s treaty referendum.

By rejecting renegotiation of either the treaty or the impossible terms of Greece’s bailout, Angela Merkel has meanwhile turned the struggle over Europe’s economy into a battle for democracy. The Greeks and French have now unequivocally voted to reject a programme the German chancellor insists they will have to swallow regardless.

And it’s not difficult to see why they’re rejecting it. Austerity isn’t working, even in its own terms. Cutting jobs and pay while increasing taxes isn’t reducing borrowing and debt, let alone leading to economic recovery. It’s deepening recession, increasing debt and destroying jobs and squeezing living standards across the eurozone – in countries such as Spain and Greece, catastrophically – as well as in Britain.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg today took the opportunity of their defeat in last week’s local elections to insist there could be no “let-up” in their own austerity programme. That comes less than a fortnight after the country officially sank into a double-dip recession as cuts shrank the construction sector.

Of course they also insisted they would “go for growth”. But as voters across Europe are about to discover, growth policies come in all shapes and sizes, from deregulation to public investment, and the inclusion of plans to make it easier to sack workers in tomorrow’s Queen’s speech makes quite clear which kind Cameron and Clegg have in mind.

But the victory of Hollande, on a platform of jobs, investment, higher taxes on the rich and renegotiation of the eurozone fiscal pact, has already changed the political dynamic across Europe and weakened the German-led axis of austerity. Even the international finance mandarins are shifting ground: European Central Bank president Mario Draghi now talks about a “growth compact“, while IMF boss Christine Lagarde has just discovered that “fiscal austerity holds back growth and the effects are worse in downturns“.

The political upheaval in Greece, however, could have still more far-reaching consequences. Greece’s economic collapse, triggered by the crash of 2008 and deepened by EU and IMF-enforced austerity, is a social disaster on the level of the US depression of the 1930s. Real wages have fallen by 25% in two years, according to the OECD.

It’s hardly surprising that support for the governing parties which brought Greece to such a pass fell from 80% to 30%, while leftwing parties that reject the EU-IMF cuts, privatisations and unachievable debt repayments surged ahead of both the discredited establishment and the nationalist right.

While international attention has focused on the fascist Golden Dawn party’s 7% vote, by far the biggest beneficiary of Sunday’s election was the radical left Syriza coalition, which won 17%. Its leader Alexis Tsipras has been holding talks on the unlikely prospect of forming a government without new elections.

For the past four years, the crisis has culled incumbents without discrimination, from the Republican George Bush and conservative Nicolas Sarkozy to Labour’s Gordon Brown and the Spanish Socialist José Luis Zapatero, while the far right has advanced across Europe by preying on anti-migrant insecurities and posing as anti-establishment outsiders.

It is now being challenged by parties of the left that reject a failing neoliberal system and are retaking social territory which should never have abandoned. Marine Le Pen’s National Front outpolled Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Left Front in France’s presidential elections. But it’s not Geert Wilders’ Islamophobic Freedom party that has gained most from the collapse of the pro-austerity Dutch government, it’s the radical Socialist party, now coming first or second in opinion polls with up to 20% support.

As the cost of the establishment’s austerity deepens, the polarisation between left and right is portrayed in much of the media as the rise of “extremes”. But it’s both absurd and repugnant to equate racist or xenophobic nationalists, which have kept supposedly centrist governments in power from Denmark to Italy, with leftist parties rooted in social movements that stand for a progressive political and economic alternative.

Nor is there anything “extreme” about an organisation such as Syriza that rejects a programme of social and economic destruction which is in every sense extreme – and calls for negotiation. Mainstream political choices and debates have become so narrow over the years of pro-market consensus that the reappearance of genuine alternatives is apparently too shocking to absorb.

The expectation is now that Merkel will block attempts by Hollande to renegotiate Europe’s austerity treaty, but instead agree to add a vaguely worded growth pact (as happened in the runup to the creation of the euro in the 90s) that would allow extra European Investment Bank lending and infrastructure projects.

If the French Socialist president were then to drive through the kind of cuts implied by his plans to balance the budget by 2017, in a context of continuing eurozone crisis and slump, the risk of fuelling a resurgent and toxic right on the back of social disillusionment is obvious. Either in that case – or of a clash with the financial markets – only a powerful social movement could provide the necessary counterweight.

The future of the eurozone now depends on what happens in Greece, and the risk of market contagion. Some on the Greek left hope to strengthen their bargaining hand with the EU and IMF in new elections. Others are sceptical, as the likelihood of default and exit from the euro looms ever larger.

Greece is a harsh case, where the political battle is now on between radical options of diametrically opposed kinds. But people across Europe are profoundly disillusioned with a market-driven order that has failed to deliver. If the left doesn’t offer a real alternative, others certainly will – with ugly consequences.

From the Guardian

By TUC

More than 100 MPs have signed an early day motion (EDM) criticising government proposals for the future of railways in the UK, reveals the TUC today (Tuesday).

The EDM warns that the government’s plans will ‘worsen passenger services through the loss of thousands of frontline workers from trains, stations, ticket offices, safety-critical infrastructure and operational roles’, and ‘will result in higher fares, cuts in services and more crowded trains’.

MPs have raised concerns that the ‘proposals to break up Network Rail will increase the complexity and inefficiency of the railways’ and they also claim the government proposals ignore ‘the lessons from railways in European countries which have generally achieved lower costs and fares through a more unified structure’.

The EDM – tabled by Labour MP John McDonnell – has attracted cross-party support including that of former Lib Dem leaders Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell.

The MPs who have signed the EDM have urged the government to run the railway as a ‘public service’ with ‘affordable fares and proper staffing levels’.

This comes as new research has found that while fare prices are going through the roof, investment by train operating companies in the railway network has been halved over the last five years.

There has been an 80 per cent reduction in investment in stations – while there has been over twice as much spent on back office functions such as IT and web costs. There has also been a 15 per cent reduction in private investment in new rolling stock and a 100 per cent reduction in funds spent on track and signals.

TUC Deputy General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: ‘MPs from across the political spectrum are voicing the concerns of thousands of their constituents who feel ripped off by private train operators who inflict heavy fare rises while cutting staff on trains and stations and keeping investment in decent facilities on trains and stations to a minimum.

‘These same companies are now being rewarded by the government with longer franchises and more freedom to maximise profits while cutting staff and closing ticket offices, showing exactly where ministers’ priorities lie – not with the passenger but with the executives and shareholders of the train operating companies.’

ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan recalled the previous transport minister, Philip Hammond, warning last year that the railways could become ‘a rich man’s toy’. He said: ‘The Command Paper is a detailed blue-print of how to deliver that scenario. A fragmented railway run in small sections by competing interests is necessarily expensive and wasteful.’

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said: ‘The scandal of rail privatisation, which has bled billions in private profit out of our transport system for the last two decades, not only continues but is set to worsen under the plans laid out in the government’s McNulty Rail Review. This government has learnt nothing from the tragedies of the past and is allowing the profiteers to bleed the railways of desperately-needed investment while creating the perfect conditions for another Hatfield or Potters Bar. It is a national disgrace.’

TSSA General Secretary Manuel Cortes said: ‘UK rail has long been a cash merry-go-round in which the passenger consistently gets taken for a ride. Now passengers are being told that they are expected to stand for further fare increases, fewer trains which will be more overcrowded and fewer staff delivering a less safe and more confusing environment in and around stations. It is a national disgrace designed to benefit shareholders and allow government to deny responsibility.’

Unite national officer Julia Long said: ‘For far too long, the privatised rail companies have been given a series of blank cheques by government to subsidise their operations, only for this to be siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders and senior management.

‘Minister think they can cut the size of this subsidy by pushing operating companies to sack staff and cram even more people onto old, tired rolling stock. The government’s policy will also increase the potential for disruptions to intercity passenger and freight services.’

NOTES TO EDITORS:

- Private investment in UK railways
£m 2006-07 Q1 to 2011-12 Q2 (Source: Office of Rail Regulation)

- All TUC press releases can be found at www.tuc.org.uk

Contacts:

Media enquiries:
Liz Chinchen T: 020 7467 1248 M: 07778 158175 E: media@tuc.org.uk
Elly Gibson T: 020 7467 1337 M: 07900 910624 E: egibson@tuc.org.uk

By ekathimerini.com

Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the runner-up in the May 6 general elections Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), presented the five points along which his discussions with minority party leaders will develop as he tries to form a coalition government after frontrunner New Democracy failed at the task on Monday.

Following a meeting with President Karolos Papoulias, who delivered the mandate to Tsipras, the 38-year-old politician said that «this is a historic moment for the left and a great challenge for me.”

Addressing the press from Parliament later and before embarking on a string of meetings with party and union leaders, Tsipras rejected the efforts of New Democracy and third-placed PASOK for a so-called «national salvation government,» saying that a coalition of conservative and centrist forces would be a government «for the salvation of the memorandum» and would violate the mandate of the people, who have, «rejected the bailout agreement with their vote.”

Tsipras challenged the two parties, who have ruled Greece for the past three decades but suffered a crushing defeat at the May 6 polls, to rescind their letters of guarantee to creditors saying that Greece would abide in full to the terms of the bailout deal, «if they truly regret what they have done to the Greek people.”

On his upcoming talks to explore whether he will be able to form a majority coalition with parties of the left and parties representing environmental concerns, the head of SYRIZA — which gleaned 16.78 percent at the ballot box and won 52 seats in the 300-seat Parliament — laid out the five points that will be the focus of discussions:

* The immediate cancellation of all impending measures that will impoverish Greeks further, such as cuts to pensions and salaries.

* The immediate cancellation of all impending measures that undermine fundamental workers’ rights, such as the abolition of collective labor agreements.

* The immediate abolition of a law granting MPs immunity from prosecution, reform of the electoral law and a general overhaul of the political system.

* An investigation into Greek banks, and the immediate publication of the audit performed on the Greek banking sector by BlackRock.

* The setting up of an international auditing committee to investigate the causes of Greece’s public deficit, with a moratorium on all debt servicing until the findings of the audit are published.

“We are not indifferent to whether the country will be governed or not, but we are primarily concerned with the direction in which the country will be governed and whether the people’s mandate will be respected,» Tsipras said.

The SYRIZA leader is expected to meet first with Fotis Kouvelis from Democratic Left (which received 6.1 percent of the vote and 19 seats) and then with Ecologist Greens (2.93 percent; no seats) representative Ioanna Kontouli and Social Pact (0.96 percent; no seats) president Louka Katseli. Earlier he spoke on the telephone with Greek Communist Party leader Aleka Papariga who rejected a face-to-face meeting.

Tsipras has indicated that he will use the full three days at his disposal to talk with all the party leaders, including those of New Democracy and PASOK, but barring Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn).

The dispute with the Tory government over public sector pensions is continuing. Members of the civil service union PCS, members of UNITE in the NHS, and members of UCU in the TPS will be on strike again on Thursday 10 May.

They are striking because the government want members in these pension schemes to:

Pay more – Extra pension contributions have been imposed for most civil servants –with further increases planned for the next two years.
Work longer – Civil service retirement is now linked to the state pension age – that’s already rising to 68 and the government says it will get higher.
Get less – Changes to indexation from RPI to the lower CPI inflation mean pensions fall by 15 to 20%.

And a two-year pay freeze is to be followed by 1% rises. New regional pay plans mean that everyone outside London might face further cuts.

The Coalition of Resistance supports the members of these unions carrying on the fight to defend public sector pensions, services and jobs. In London, the Coalition of Resistance will join the march organised by UNITE, PCS and UCU starting at 12noon at St Thomas’ Hospital for a Rally at 1pm at Westminster Central Hall.

More information from each union can be obtained here:
UNITE: http://www.unitetheunion.org/resources/pensions/protecting_pensions_for_our_pu.aspx
PCS: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/10-may–all-out/#Why_we_are_striking_on_10_May
UCU: http://tps.web.ucu.org.uk/

By Coalition of Resistance

The Coalition of Resistance welcomes the election of Francois Hollande as President of France.

His victory signifies a new moment in European politics, one in which the majority of the French people have turned decisively against the politics of austerity. He has won on a platform of promising investment and growth, on a platform of defending public services and reducing unemployment. This victory follows that of the Labour Party here where government parties lost hundreds of council seats. In the Greek elections, anti-austerity parties have made a strong showing, with Syriza – the anti-austerity coalition of the radical left – supplanting PASOK as the second party. All these developments show that millions of people throughout the continent are looking for an alternative to the politics of despair.

This must now be a new stage in the fight-back against austerity. As Alexis Tspiras, leader of Syriza, has stated: ‘This election is a message against austerity. We’ve won a battle but not the war’.

Yet the results show clearly that there are great political dangers ahead if the left does not unite around a strong anti-cuts programme, presenting and fighting for real alternatives to the neo-liberal agenda. In France, the Front National took 18% of the vote in the first round and Sarkozy employed an increasing level of racist and Islamophobic rhetoric in his attempts to close the gap with Hollande. There can be no doubt that Le Pen will now attempt to supersede the UMP as the main party of the right in France.

In Greece, the openly fascist Golden Dawn party have gone from 0.23% of the vote to a projected 6.8% of the vote and in some working class areas are now the third party. There are clear lessons for the Labour Party from these results. In Greece, the pro-austerity social democratic PASOK – Labour’s sister party – has been decimated from 44% to 16%. They have lost the vast majority of their electoral support because of their refusal to oppose the Troika’s prescriptions in the face of widespread popular hardship and suffering. In France, Hollande has won a victory because he appears to fight the cuts and present a different path. But in understanding the reasons for Hollande’s victory we would do well to understand how his political fortunes will change if he fails to deliver on his promises. The same will apply to Labour’s electoral support if it fails to effectively oppose the cuts.

The Coalition of Resistance congratulates all those who have contributed to these victories and will redouble our efforts to fight for an alternative both in Britain and throughout Europe.

• For full Greek parliamentary election results click here

Video from the 19/20 March 2012 delegation to Greece organised by the Greece Solidarity Campaign, Coalition of Resistance and People’s Charter.

By Bronwen Handyside

Despite no mention of the Health & Social Care Bill in Tory or Lib Dem manifestos, in spite of mass opposition from workers from top to bottom of the health service as well as thousands of health campaigners, the Coalition government has forced it through.

It is now law – the Health & Social Care Act.

•    The Act allows private companies to take over any NHS service they think they can make money out of.

•    It has removed the government’s responsibility to provide health services equally to all – inevitably leading to one service for the rich, and another for the poor.

•    The government’s demand for £20bn cuts in the NHS by 2014 means that health services are already being rationed. The Health & Social Care Act makes the situation far worse. NB: on top of this already impossible target, which is thrusting dozens of Trusts into debt, the government is now demanding a further  £20bn of cuts by 2018.

•    An overwhelming majority of health care professionals (including the GPs central to the changes) oppose the Act – because it means they will have to carry out the rationing of health care services.

Private healthcare companies have already begun to carve up the NHS.

As soon as the Act was forced through, private healthcare companies started securing thousands of commercial contracts up and down the country.

Hundreds of thousands of NHS staff are being laid off or transferred to private employers, services are merging and closing, and patients are doing without care unless they can afford to pay.

Primary care trusts in Sussex, Surrey and Devon have signed long-term contracts with Virgin Care worth £500 million that include care of the most vulnerable people including children, people with disabilities, and people with learning difficulties.

Despite the government mantra that the market provides choice – the citizens of Sussex, Surrey and Devon had no choice in the decision by Primary Care Trust bureaucrats to sell off the service to Virgin.

The government has made a special deal with the first private company (Circle) to take over an NHS hospital to ensure it can cream off profits before paying off the hospital’s debts. This means Circle has to make a £70million profit over the next decade on a hospital that is £38million in the red. The only way it can possibly do this is by slashing health workers’ wages and conditions. Ali Parsa, head of Circle, says the cuts will be “eye-watering”.

To add insult to injury – the legal system is designed to prioritise the needs of the market over the needs of ordinary people – so these rotten deals with private companies can be covered up in the name of “commercial confidentiality”.

As a result, Sussex, Surrey and Devon residents cannot find out how the decision was made to award the contract for their health services to Virgin, and nor can we find out what the deal is that the government has secretly made with Circle to guarantee profits for their shareholders (the majority of whom are venture capitalists and hedge fund managers).

See article by Public Health expert Allyson Pollock on the government’s use of “commercial confidentiality” to cover up the deal they made with Circle.

What you can do

10 May

•    Support Unite the Union’s healthworkers taking strike action in defence of their pensions. Health workers’ pensions stand in the way of private companies taking over NHS services, as they cut down profits.
•    See information on local picket lines and demonstrations here.

23 June

Come to a Public Conference for NHS Supporters to plan the way forward:
Reclaiming Our NHS
Saturday 23 June 2012, 10.30 am – 4 pm
Friends Meeting House,
Euston Road (opposite Euston train station), London NW1 2JB
Organised by Keep Our NHS Public and NHS Support Federation

Click here for full info

Autumn 2012

Unite, Unison and GMB are pushing for a national march against austerity and for the NHS. The Coalition of Resistance, UK Uncut, and the Occupy movement are also supporting the call for the march. As soon as the date is announced we need to start organising locally with trade unions, community groups, students, pensioners etc for the biggest possible turnout on that march.

By Andrew Burgin

Local elections in Britain have seen the Tories and Lib Dems punished by voters.  Across Europe the parties of austerity are being rejected argues Andrew Burgin

A downbeat David Cameron in Tory campaign headquarters as the scale of the defeat becomes clear

Britain’s swing to Labour mirrors electoral results across Europe as people seek to oppose brutal austerity policies. In many places this is the first real opportunity for those facing such measures to make themselves heard at an electoral level. Those responsible for implementing these policies have been punished.

In France, the presidential election looks set to be won by the Socialist party candidate Francois Hollande. He is campaigning on a programme opposing the austerity policies of the right under Sarkozy, and for creating jobs and growth through investment with some limited proposals to tax the rich. He has been pushed to the left by the vibrant campaign of the Front de Gauche headed by Jean-Luc Melenchon and this has given him that extra sustainable edge over the incumbent.

In the Greek elections, the perpetrators of austerity will be punished – in this case the social democratic PASOK is likely to take the biggest hit – with anti-austerity parties of the far left expected to make large gains. Anger and disenchantment at the continued collapse of the economy and drive to further cut wages and increase unemployment are finding their reflection at the ballot box.

In Britain, Labour advances indicate strong dissatisfaction with coalition policies as Labour won back more than 800 council seats. The party strengthened its position across the country, reasserting itself in former Labour heartlands in Wales and England and holding its position in traditional working class areas in Scotland. It took overall control of Glasgow city council which it was widely expected to lose. This, together with setbacks for Plaid Cymru, may have put a brake on the advance of the nationalist parties. Revelations of Alex Salmond’s close links with Rupert Murdoch may have limited the SNP’s progress.

However, Labour’s advance came with little enthusiasm from the voters. Whereas in France, 80% turned out to vote for their president, actual turnout in Britain was reduced to just over 30%. Whatever the differing levels of interest displayed at state and local level, this cannot mask the collapse of voter participation. Even at this time of economic crisis where political decisions massively affect people’s everyday lives and livelihoods, the majority of people just could not be bothered to turn out and vote, even against government parties. Explanations for this abound, not least disenchantment with the major parties and a feeling that whatever the outcome there will be more of the same. And of course the first past the post system contributes to this assessment. But one of the striking factors in these elections is that even in spite of the obstacles presented by the electoral system, people have voted for alternatives and some of those alternatives have made progress, sometimes strikingly so.

The success of the Green Party in London is not surprising, given their track record in the city, strong anti-austerity policies and increased national profile with Caroline Lucas now in Parliament. And Jenny Jones’ third place for London Mayor is a breakthrough as Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick fell to a paltry fourth place, punished for his party’s disgraceful role in propping up the Tories in government. No doubt they will face a serious threat to their future as a national political organisation should they continue to play that role.

Other anti-austerity forces also did well. In Bradford the resurgent Respect Party took five seats and ousted the council leader. With Labour the largest group in the council, yet without overall control, a crucial test for Respect will be the pressure they can bring to bear to move council policies to the left. This has been the mark of successful left parties in Europe – making advances for the working class where they have political clout and can influence social democracy to the left. In Preston, independent socialist Michael Lavalette, who was endorsed by Respect, regained his seat.

The BNP did not benefit from the turn away from mainstream parties. This is a tribute to the consistent work of the anti-fascist left and one that should be noted across Europe. The BNP took none of the seats that they contested. Whereas UKIP advanced, taking on average 13% in the 700 seats where they stood, Griffin’s attempted ‘modernisation’ of his party failed to convince the voters and they also lost their seat on the London Assembly. But this should not lead to complacency about the far right threat, as other parties have exploited racism and Islamophobia to scape-goat these communities for the economic ills imposed on us by the free market policies of our ruling class.

The biggest setback for the anti-austerity movement in these elections was the narrow defeat of Ken Livingstone in London. Livingstone’s programme included cutting fares on public transport, the reintroduction of EMA for young students and the creation of new low cost housing. A vicious personal campaign was waged against Livingstone by the Evening Standard and the Murdoch corporation. Boris Johnson’s campaign was masterminded by ‘attack dog’ Lynton Crosby. Johnson played little part in his own campaign – which was remarkably devoid of concrete policies for London. He was surrounded by minders who kept him away from ordinary Londoners who will now pay the price for this despicable anti-political campaign. The loss of Ken Livingstone from the political scene is much to be regretted.

The lessons of these elections are clear: there is massive popular dissatisfaction with the policies of the coalition government – sharply exposed by the recent budget and the ‘omnishambles’ that has followed. But there is also frustration with the mainstream parties and an increasing understanding that they do not offer a way out of the political and economic crisis that we are in. For many this means, in essence, political abstention through no show at the polls. For others this means a turn to political alternatives including anti-austerity parties of the left.

The challenge for the anti-austerity movement is to strengthen the case for alternatives to the neo-liberal orthodoxy which is devastating our society and communities, whether through driving Labour’s policies to the left to meet the needs of its constituents or through posing clear political alternatives that give people genuine electoral representation. Both of these will be strengthened and advanced by the continuing and growing work of the Coalition of Resistance.

We are now at the beginning of the campaign to build the largest possible anti-austerity demonstration this autumn, working hand in hand with the trade unions which will lead this vital initiative. The building of a mass campaign against the cuts, on the streets and in our communities, is the clearest way to ensure that the limited gains reflected in these election results will translate into real and permanent economic and political change.

For a useful summary of the Greek parliamentary parties standing in the election of 6 May and what they stand for, see the first half of Nick Malkoutzis’s pre-election article ‘Greece’s painful political transition’.

His analysis may be middle of the road for some (a bit like ‘The Independent’).  Certainly it is too internally focused, attributes insufficient attention to the effect of the international crisis on Greece, and therefore seems to suggest Greece can reform itself out of the crisis.

But it provides English speakers, baffled by Greek politics, with a very clear and comprehensive introduction to the parliamentary contenders and what they stand for. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/09061.pdf

By Philip Inman

Service sector shrinks for 11th consecutive month as consumer spending collapses after wages, pensions and benefits cuts

Italy‘s recession is likely to be longer and deeper than expected after its services sector shrank for the 11th month running in April and at its sharpest rate for almost three years.

A collapse in consumer spending following cuts in wages, benefits and pensions was behind the fall in output shown in Friday’s data and follows the worst manufacturing numbers for three years earlier in the week.

The dire figures from Rome added to a picture of weakening demand across the eurozone’s vast services sector, which shrivelled at a much faster rate in April than initially thought.

Economists suggested that the currency bloc’s recession could extend beyond the summer after output contracted in core countries such as France and the Netherlands along with Italy and Spain.

Madrid will come under further pressure from unions and anti-poverty campaigners to relent on public spending cuts scheduled for this year after the services sector fell to 42.1 from 46.3 in March.

The final reading of April’s Markit purchasing managers index (PMI) for the entire eurozone services sector came in at 46.9, a full point lower than the preliminary reading of 47.9 reported two weeks ago, which itself was far weaker than City analysts had expected.

It was the steepest downward revision to the PMI since October 2008 and the immediate aftermath of the Lehman Brothers collapse.

Anything below 50 signifies contraction.

Survey compiler Markit attributed the revision to business conditions worsening at a faster rate towards the end of the month, and said the figure was consistent with a 0.5% quarterly rate of economic contraction.

A dearth of new orders suggested the figures for May could be even worse.

“Little can be said to remain of any ‘core’ of strength in the region,” said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.

“Growth has practically ground to a halt even in Germany, and France has joined Italy and Spain in seeing a strong rate of economic decline.”

On Thursday, European Central Bank president Mario Draghi said the eurozone economy would recover gradually over the year. But the latest PMIs, which have a good record of tracking economic growth, suggest he will have to wait a while yet.

“Stimulus measures implemented by the ECB have not had a lasting impact on the real economy. Confidence also fell back further in April,” said Williamson.

Eurozone unemployment hit 10.9% in March, equalling a record high set 15 years ago, and the latest PMIs suggest that is unlikely to improve.

New business, backlogs of work and input and output prices all showed significant downward revisions compared with the initial flash readings.

Annalisa Piazza of analysts Newedge Strategy said Spain and Italy’s figures present a worrying picture for activity in the sector.

“Both Italy and Spain are suffering from a marked cyclical slowdown and tight fiscal conditions add further pressure on domestic demand. Today’s PMI figures clearly point to further deterioration in the second quarter, with risks of another sharp contraction in activity,” she said.

The missile batteries, fighter jets and VIP lanes are what happens when a world agency blackmails a city aching for prestige.

In preparation for the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Metropolitan police marine unit and Royal Marines perform a joint exercise on the river Thames. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters

There seems to be no limit to the efforts of Lord Coe and his friends at the International Olympic Committee to bring this summer’s London Games into ridicule and contempt. A week-long “military exercise” is currently under way in the capital. RAF Typhoon jets are to scream back and forth over the Thames. Starstreak surface-to-air missile batteries are being set up in East End parks and on flats in Bow, with 10 soldiers manning each one. Army and navy helicopters will clatter back and forth, with snipers hanging from their doors “to shoot down pilots of terrorist planes”.

Machine-guns will for the first time be toted by guards on the London tube. Police special forces, “trained to kill”, will wear balaclavas to avoid identification. There are to be naval landing craft roaming the coast off Weymouth and submarines at the ready. The Olympics have become a festival of the global security industry, with a running and jumping contest as a sideshow. No one in government dares call a halt. Nero in his prime could not have squandered so much money on circuses.

The Olympics have become an Orwellian parody of what happens when a world agency blackmails a government aching for prestige into spending without limit. Not one defence spokesman has come up with a plausible scenario for the jets and missiles. The latter have a range of just three miles and are said to be usable “only at the express instruction of the prime minister”. What will they shoot down, and on whose head will it crash?

These boys-with-toys are costing taxpayers £1bn yet they cannot add an iota to national security. They have nothing to do with deterring terrorism, even supposing there to be any such threat. The modern terrorist uses suicide tactics, by definition immune to deterrence. All the government has done is raise the politico-military profile of the Games and tempted some crackpot to have a go. Even at the street level, Occupy London and the cycling militants must regard Lord Coe’s VIP lanes as a golden opportunity. The Olympic organisers are planning to close the Mall, Horse Guards Parade and most of St James’s Park from June onwards, for fear someone might plant a bomb near the volleyball contest, crazily located behind Downing Street as a sop to Tony Blair. This is despite the prime minister and the mayor’s office specifically countermanding the decision. Computer firms eager for contracts place regular stories about the “threat to the games from cyber-attack”. One firm has been hired to deploy 450 “IT wizards” to guard the Games from hackers.

This means that, for the rest of the summer, London will effectively be “ruled” by the IOC. Enthusiasts for world government should take note. An unaccountable, self-validating body expects five-star hotels, chauffeur-driven BMWs, Soviet-style Zil lanes and all-green light phases for its thousands of “officials” and corporate hangers-on. It not only expects them, it gets them. It demanded and got its own legislative powers, under the 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act. Lord Coe does what the IOC tells him and passes the bill to George Osborne, who pays it. When the opening ceremony alone was £30m short (on a staggering budget of £60m), the cheque was promptly sent round.

The IOC is ever vigilant for its sponsors. Inspectors are to fan out across the capital, arresting anyone who uses the words “2012 Olympics” or any other associative phrase, for not paying Coe and the IOC a fortune in sponsorship fees. Jamie Oliver cannot hold an Olympics party in Victoria Park as he is a non-sponsor. Blogs, pictures or videos on YouTube or Facebook are banned. Anyone who so much as carries an unapproved bag, hat or shoe in a venue is banned. The Chinese politburo is Liberty Hall compared with this authoritarianism.

Transport for London has been reduced to a gibbering wreck. It has warned Londoners to get out of the city for the duration – at what cost to the economy? Citizens have been warned that central London roads will be closed, tube drivers may go on strike, and hospital casualty departments will be short of blood. How this will make money for London, as promised by Coe and others, is a mystery. As a tourist destination the place is being put on a par with Baghdad or Kabul.

There is no civic dividend from this sum and never has been. August in London is always a light month and, as the empty rows at Athens and Beijing showed, Olympic sports are not people draws. The irony is that the chief success of the London Olympics organisers has been the chief source of criticism. They have undoubtedly generated domestic enthusiasm. By making ticket sales a national lottery they achieved what appears to be the first sold-out Olympics of modern times.

However, roughly 85% of these buyers are Britons, few of whom will stay in London hotels. The crowds will be concentrated at the venues. It is the government, through its hospitality for the IOC “family”, that will sustain the luxury hotel market this August. For the non-games districts of the capital, I would be surprised if shops, buses and tubes are not half deserted, taxis unused, theatres, cinemas and concert halls empty and any royal park not fenced off for a commercial sponsor pleasantly uncrowded.

The London Games began in a spirit of economy and popular enthusiasm. At the considerable cost of £2.4bn, they were to answer the state gigantism of the Beijing Games and fuse modern sport into the urban fabric. London would prove that cities did not have to be rich to host the games. It would be “the people’s games”.

The IOC put a stop to that. It drove a pliant British government to the present paranoia, budgetary incontinence and corporate greed. If the image of the London Games is to be rescued this summer, it must rely on diverting attention to the sincerity of young athletes and spectators, on somehow restoring the dignity of the sporting spirit. For now, a noble movement has been hijacked by a monster that is plainly out of control.

from The Guardian website – see origional article here

Last Thursday in Newcastle, Paul Mackney (former General Secretary of NAFTHE) gave an inspiring report-back from the recent trade union solidarity delegation to Greece- a joint venture between Coalition of Resistance and The Peoples Charter.

Click here to watch the youtube video

“We don’t want charity, we want solidarity” is the phrase that his trade union solidarity delegation was told over, and over again during their visit-“the best way you can help us is by fighting the Austerity measures in your country, in Britain”.

He was joined on the platform by Despina Koutsoumba and Fotios Georgiadis, both archaeologists, employed by Greece’s Ministry of Culture and members of the Greek Civil Servants Union.

Greece is abundant in world-famous heritage sites so the government employs thousands of archaeologists to not only preserve the numerous sites of historic value, but also to use them as a focal points for educational and social purposes.

In a move straight out-of-an-Indiana-Jones-film, the mega-rich have been taking advantage of the situation and are spending large sums of money on professional looters who are stealing invaluable Greek artefacts for their private collections.

“We need to stop the looting- the past is not for sale” stated Despina and Fotios.

-See greecesolidarity.org for the details on how you can affiliate your organization, trade union branch or as an individual to the Greece Solidarity Campaign

-You can also sign the launch statement here.

Mark, Coalition of Resistance -Tyne and Wear

But as Despina and Fotios explained, the archaeological services have always been underfunded, and since the start of the recession, have seen their budgets cut back to the point where they can’t maintain the security of the sites.